Oh Prince Andrew is getting SUED by Virginia Robert's

[LaurieFairyCake]

That will be interesting

There are real victims here

It's going to sound very hollow from now on, don't you think @nottodaybatman, whenever a member of the royal family now mentions 'victims' in one of their charity speeches?

I agree with you it's a protectionist institution, 'the firm' - I think a few recent events have very much underscored that quite publicly.

Because neither of them have ever spoken a word of criticism about the RF. My comment was based on the Sussexes’ readiness to criticise the family on other issues yet not this one

So you would like them to carry on criticising the RF, is that it? There's been enough outrage about what they said in the OW interview, I'm surprised you want them to carry on with the criticism.
You can't have it all ways, either you want them to stop talking about the RF. Or you don't.

Perhaps Sarah Ferguson is better placed, given she was given $$$$$ by Epstein. And she has criticised the establishment of the RF.

The list of things that the RF cannot talk about with a straight face is gettting longer and longer

Child protection
Violence against women
Sexual Abuse
Social mobility for obvious reasons
Racism (given that the RF is exempt from discrimination legislation still! [Meghan])
Climate change (since they lobbied to be exempt from recent legislation!)
Animals - they do a lot of hunting.

But all of this to me is moot - the part that I cannot accept is that as a tax payer I am paying for this. The mealy mouthed reporting from the BBC and others is also really concerning. It is the institutional protection that makes me uncomfortable - protection of CSA!!
Do we just not have standards anymore?

I think it's the pact between the media and the RF that worries me. We're spoon fed a diet of Royal news whether we like it or not, always positively spun for our delectation!

Oh and the opacity of their finances. It's been reported that PA's financial situation is even murkier than most.

So you would like them to carry on criticising the RF, is that it?

No, it isn’t. You just love putting words into other people’s mouths @Roussette and you’re needlessly aggressive, it’s really difficult to have a rational debate with you.

I simply pointed out that their silence on this issue is deafening while they’re very vocal on other subjects. Is that or isn’t it true?

@Blossomtoes

So you would like them to carry on criticising the RF, is that it?

No, it isn’t. You just love putting words into other people’s mouths @Roussette and you’re needlessly aggressive, it’s really difficult to have a rational debate with you.

I simply pointed out that their silence on this issue is deafening while they’re very vocal on other subjects. Is that or isn’t it true?

Sometimes actions speak louder and whilst they moved away becuase they didn't want to be working royals it wouldn't surprise me if some of that decision was around the hypocrisy of the RF and the PA situation

If it were me I would be distancing myself away from all of that too.

Their silence on it may almost be because they could face legal issues if they do. Who knows all the ins and out but noone is speaking about it other than Fergie who only merely supports PA.

@Roussette
Also that the Met didn't investigate initially but suddenly have vim and energy to look again at the case (now that there is international attention and it is getting a bit awkward)

They are outside the norms of the law (see above), this is a family on tax payer funding, that hide their private income and are protected and coddled by the media in this country.

This is no longer a benign quirk of British constitutional history - this is a mafia family with incredible PR and power. I am both angry and embarrassed

They always seem to get the fawning protection of the current Prime Minister too, ffs. It's like they get sucked in. Are the flunkies that persuasive?

I'd have more respect for a PM who said, 'Right, the RF finances will be published annually, for all members who touch a penny out of the public purse. For clarity and all that malarkey. Jolly good.'

@mathanxiety

Epstein had loads of 'friends' far more powerful and involved but the majority of them didn't know or believe that he was trafficking girls.

LOL.

Captains of industry, founders of hedge funds, etc - do you honestly believe they all came down in the last shower?

The thing is: some may have worked out they were trafficked, some may have kidded themselves that the girls really liked 'the lifestyle they represented' (ie they might bung them a cheap bauble) but none of them actually CARED whether they were trafficked or not. These girls were not human beings to them. They were only sources of sexual gratification.

I completely agree that there needs to be much greater transparency around the RF’s finances. The same could be said for every area of public spending. As far as I can see the tax I pay vanishes into a big black hole only to be spent on a huge range of things I don’t approve of.

And, having finally worked my way through the whole thread, I also agree with @SpindleWhorl - it appears the RF is complacent at best (remember all the pics of Saville with Charles / Philip etc?). It is very telling that they appear to think that we will simply accept this, and keep paying them to entertain the tourists. I would prefer the monarchy to end with the Queen now, as, yes, they have finally 'jumped the shark'.

I see we're getting close to the end of the thread.

I don't know if anyone wants to start another one? It's been a fascinating and valuable discussion, full of information that I didn't have before, insightful views, passion, and some very articulate framings and reframings of the problems at hand. And it has shown empathy with the victims, refreshingly, and seen off the influx of rape apologists with the welcome assistance of MNHQ.

So I think it has been a good thread.

Go for it, Spindle.
I agree with our successful dealings with the rape apologists!

Blossom
Aggressive? I think not. I asked a question as to whether you want them to continue criticising. That's not aggressive.
I just find it beyond a joke to talk of Meghan's silence on this when his own family are completely silent

Why should Meghan, someone who's known him just a few years speak out, when his own family don't.
And posters on here agree.

Spindle please do start another one.

It's had its ups and downs but there's been some really valuable discussion on herr

52andblue. I so agree on the complacency.
Back in the days of Saville and the like, there was no SM and they could afford to be complacent.

Not now. The public hold them up to scrutiny quite rightly. We pay for them!
There needs to be far far more transparency in all sorts of areas

I think it needs to be abolished - the media coddling of this family has set back public discourse in a number of ways in order to protect them.

The victim blaming that has resurfaced in normal respectable media in order to defend PA would not have happended in such a concerted way across all platform for anyone outside of the RF.

The progress this country had made on racism has gone backwards in order to justify the treatment of Meghan. Racist dog whistle language and comparing new borns to monkeys etc (Danny Baker was rehired by the BBC within the year!) all ignored and dismissed when pre Meghan it would have been called out for what it is.

It is disgusting and unnecessary.

Can someone else please set up a second thread? I wouldn't be able to link to it, using this crap device I'm currently on. Thanks!

I would but I'm on a phone at the moment so would take me ages.

I’ll do it if someone wants to suggest a title.

There's a thread about him on the royal family boards too. That one is only half full.

eek I don't know Blossom , maybe same as above part2?

I'm hopeless at thread titles!

The existing one is here http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/theroyalfamily/3807047-Prince-Andrew-fails-to-cooperate-with-FBI

Prince Andrew and VRG part 2?