Weihrauch17 Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 Queenie has cut him off. lost all his military titles and his HRH title. He is facing the case as a private citizen. Well done her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 have they mentioned the bit about chemical castration.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ditchman said: have they mentioned the bit about chemical castration.......... No but there is rumour of him getting plants free from the NHS via his GP? Edited January 13, 2022 by old man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 26 minutes ago, Weihrauch17 said: Queenie has cut him off. lost all his military titles and his HRH title. He is facing the case as a private citizen. Well done her. He is still a Prince, still has the title Duke of York, and is still HRH, but will not use HRH in an official capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houseplant Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 I don't have strong feelings about the monarchy, but for all that wealth and privilege they really could behave better. Not just talking about Andrew, Charles, Harry and evening some of the older, now dead generation. The Andrew debacle and the Queen's death when it happens will lead to more of the former colonies in the direction of republicanism if not the UK itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
525 Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 Sorry if this question has already been asked but, regardless of his guilt or otherwise, why should UK release one of its citizens to USA when USA refuse to release Sacoolas to UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, 525 said: Sorry if this question has already been asked but, regardless of his guilt or otherwise, why should UK release one of its citizens to USA when USA refuse to release Sacoolas to UK? It won't be a case of being 'released' because as a civil case (it is NOT a criminal case) extradition wouldn't apply). IF he was charged with anything criminal - that might change. Edited January 13, 2022 by JohnfromUK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfieldspares Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 (edited) Someone said to me that they wouldn't have liked to have been the proverbial "fly on the wall" when Andrew met HM The Queen. I replied that I'd sooner be that though than be the fly on his trousers.... I'll get my own coat.... Edited January 13, 2022 by enfieldspares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 Quote the judge has had to be "flexible" in his interpretation of the law to allow the case to proceed. Well off the mark. His reasoning is very sound and based on the law, not public opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 39 minutes ago, 525 said: Sorry if this question has already been asked but, regardless of his guilt or otherwise, why should UK release one of its citizens to USA when USA refuse to release Sacoolas to UK? Hello, Good post ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 16 hours ago, Gordon R said: Well off the mark. His reasoning is very sound and based on the law, not public opinion. With respect Gordon it was not about the law, it was about possible ambiguity deep in the wording of the agreement which made it entirely a matter of his opinion. Another judge could well have found differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 He didn't pass judgement on the agreement. He said it was ambiguous and so had to be put before a jury to decide what it meant. I don't see how any other judge could come to another conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 19 hours ago, Houseplant said: I don't have strong feelings about the monarchy, but for all that wealth and privilege they really could behave better. Not just talking about Andrew, Charles, Harry and evening some of the older, now dead generation. The Andrew debacle and the Queen's death when it happens will lead to more of the former colonies in the direction of republicanism if not the UK itself. Very true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Best Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 20 hours ago, Houseplant said: The Andrew debacle and the Queen's death when it happens will lead to more of the former colonies in the direction of republicanism if not the UK itself. One day there will only be five kings in the World. Spades, Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts...........and England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 20 hours ago, welsh1 said: He is still a Prince, still has the title Duke of York, and is still HRH, but will not use HRH in an official capacity. the city of york has started proceedings to distance the city from that of the duke of york connection....whether or not they can get him to step down from that title is another thing ............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 58 minutes ago, ditchman said: the city of york has started proceedings to distance the city from that of the duke of york connection....whether or not they can get him to step down from that title is another thing ............ Im sure he wont break a sweat about it ...Oh wait ... 🤭 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
countryman Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 Is there a statue of him anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 14, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 Just now, countryman said: Is there a statue of him anywhere. Probably in his own garden! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 10 minutes ago, countryman said: Is there a statue of him anywhere. Naughty, naughty? 10 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: Probably in his own garden! 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 18 minutes ago, old man said: Naughty, naughty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 i wonder if the royals frequent this forum at all........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel b3 Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 40 minutes ago, ditchman said: i wonder if the royals frequent this forum at all........... Not any more 😁. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 The Trouble with Andrew | Vanity Fair | August 2011 An article from 2011, which makes interesting reading, not least because Buckingham Palace said Andrew and Epstein had been friends for the best part of 20 years, whereas Andrew now claims to have met him in 1999. A Buckingham Palace spokesman elaborated on this analysis of the prince’s personality. “The same kind of loyalty manifested itself last December, when the duke visited Epstein at his home in New York,” he told me. “Epstein was a friend of the duke’s for the best part of 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 15, 2022 Report Share Posted January 15, 2022 (edited) 19 hours ago, Gordon R said: He didn't pass judgement on the agreement. He said it was ambiguous and so had to be put before a jury to decide what it meant. I don't see how any other judge could come to another conclusion. This. We kicked the issue round at work over the water cooler, so to speak, and one of the guys who works with me is a true technical nerd and he went straight to ‘privity of contract’. Andrew was not named as a party to the settlement agreement and he was neither specifically mentioned nor conferred any rights in the agreement and he didn’t even know about the contents of the agreement, thus he has no legal right to enforce an agreement he didn’t know about and wasn’t a party to. Also, in most courts in the free world (and so of course I’m not talking about a court operating in the Middle East, Russia or China etc) there is a maximum that justice has to be seen to be done. Attempting to stifle a viable claim (which is demonstrably not baseless) because of a chancy technicality and with the world’s media watching - well I wouldn’t want to be that Judge. . Edited January 15, 2022 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 15, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2022 Clutching at Straws! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.