Page 4 | How can her majesty bail him out?!

Chloemol · 17/02/2022 16:11

We don’t know it’s coming from her, it’s just speculation

If it does come from her she will be using private money sonit’s up to her if she digs her son out of the mud or not, the same as hundreds of thousands of other mothers out there

Prometheus · 17/02/2022 16:12

@AKASammyScrounge

I mean if they could prove it he could do time at Her Majesty's pleasure after all.

He hasn't been proved guilty of anything. I really can't go along with PA's public crucifixion. He is a sleaze and had sleazy friends. That's about all we can say. He has paid a terrible price for his behaviour and I can' t help but think the price is disproportionate.

This. He’s a sleazy man who slept with a much younger woman. We have no way of knowing if he realised she didn’t actually want to sleep to with him or if he just assumed she was one of many women who wanted to sleep with him (he was a bit of womaniser and attractive man back in the day). Whilst this male entitlement is pretty repugnant it’s all too common and I assume still goes on nowadays - young women sleeping with rich, older men.

Unfortunately his denials make him look guilty and give fodder to the media. In the BBC interview he should’ve held his hands up, agreed that he slept with VG and stated that he had no idea she had been groomed and apologised for any inadvertent pain he had caused.

viques · 17/02/2022 16:16

@Ilostit

Oh we know ffs it’s coming from the Queen

Unless his ex wife has managed to write another book, sell the film rights to Netflix , sell a kidney, set up a B and B in their mansion and do a deal with Hello for exclusive pictures of their re marriage..... ( that last one is an MN exclusive, btw, you read it here first -and last.)

SheldonesqueTheBstard · 17/02/2022 16:18

I think it more likely that those who indulged alongside him will have put their hands in their pockets.

Having him settle will benefit them - especially after watching the shitshow of the Maitliss interview.

boireannach · 17/02/2022 16:18

If the Queen bailed him out it she did it to protect the Crown not from maternal love. Everything she does is done to protect the Crown.

IamSamantha · 17/02/2022 16:21

@TizerorFizz

Well at his age it’s pathetic! It’s utterly shameful.

But he is pathetic and should be ashamed. He's the most self entitled of all her children.

tickingthebox73 · 17/02/2022 16:35

[quote Ilostit]It’s disgraceful. He should his own sorry sad life out. Beast.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60401663[/quote]
Who says she has??

(Spoiler - no one has said the Queen has bailed him out). If you read the papers carefully they are quoting unnamed "experts" to get around the fact they don't actually know.

Nobody know the amount and nobody knows who has paid it.

YogaLite · 17/02/2022 16:40

That's because royals are good at covering up their finances.

Roussette · 17/02/2022 16:42

It's being raised in Parliament next week when they return. Maybe we will learn more then.
Clarification needed that no public money is being used.

Blossomtoes · 17/02/2022 16:42

@YogaLite

That's because royals are good at covering up their finances.

Whereas you share details of yours with the world, presumably?

DetailMouse · 17/02/2022 17:04

Maybe Fergie will help him out with a few quid,, they are still friendly I think.!!

Don't they live together?! I don't think she's got any money though

YogaLite · 17/02/2022 17:25

@Blossomtoes, I am not funded from public taxes like RF. Funny that MPs also want to know where the money is coming from

Blossomtoes · 17/02/2022 17:33

[quote YogaLite]@Blossomtoes, I am not funded from public taxes like RF. Funny that MPs also want to know where the money is coming from [/quote]
Indeed. Very funny, given that they’re funded by our taxes and nobody asks them to account for the way they spend the money we give them.

tanktopsruleok · 17/02/2022 17:39

@PurpleDaisies

As long as it isn’t coming from the taxpayer.

He’s her son. I am no royalist and I can’t stand Andrew but surely it’s not that difficult to see a parent helping their child, no matter what they’ve done.

Lol how do you think the royal family are funded

YogaLite · 17/02/2022 17:43

U don't become lavishly funded MP for life.

Well, unless u are a rich/connected person who gets promoted to the HoL, another less then democratic institution.

CovidCorvid · 17/02/2022 17:48

Ultimately no matter where he's got the money from it's indirectly come from the tax payer. Where does the Queen get her private wealth from, investments, etc but what enabled those investments to be initially made? It's not like she started her own business at 16yo and worked her way up.

The same for if it's down to him selling his ski chalet - most ex RAF types can't afford £25million chalets even if it was only £7million when he bought it. Where did he get that £7 million from? Inheritance, etc? And that inheritance would initially have been tax payer money.

Blossomtoes · 17/02/2022 17:48

U don't become lavishly funded MP for life.

Have you seen their pension scheme? It makes no difference how long it’s for, it’s still taxpayers’ money.

Billandben444 · 17/02/2022 17:54

Ultimately no matter where he's got the money from it's indirectly come from the tax payer
Unless some other sleazy individuals have had a whip round in thanks that it wasn't them.

YogaLite · 17/02/2022 18:11

Not seen the pension scheme but I expect it covers the period of them being MPs rather then being funded in perpetuity for all descendants?

@CovidCorvid articulates it better -love the nickname

Blossomtoes · 17/02/2022 18:11

@Billandben444

Ultimately no matter where he's got the money from it's indirectly come from the tax payer Unless some other sleazy individuals have had a whip round in thanks that it wasn't them.

I suspect this is exactly what’s happened. There are some very wealthy American men who will be only too pleased this has gone away.

Blossomtoes · 17/02/2022 18:12

@YogaLite

Not seen the pension scheme but I expect it covers the period of them being MPs rather then being funded in perpetuity for all descendants?

@CovidCorvid articulates it better -love the nickname

But you said for life 🙄

Roussette · 17/02/2022 18:48

even if it was only £7million when he bought it

It wasn't! It was £18M. Where indeed did he get that money from?

emuloc · 17/02/2022 19:22

@sashh

She has generally always put the State first so I will be shocked if she is bailing him out.

She has put the RF and its status first.

This. Survival of the Royal Family will always come first, whatever some people may think.

MrsTerryPratchett · 17/02/2022 20:43

@twelly

I think there is an important principle - there has been no admission of guilt, if this were someone not in the public eye I would be appalled that they were being reported as guilty. This was/is a civil case. I don't think there is a right for people to know how he is funding the settlement - the same would apply to other cases.

We don't know the details - this case did not go to court and therefore there must be a presumption of innocence . I say that because if this were not a member of the royal family or a famous individual I think we would be horrified if they were assumed guilty.

We frequently see cases where a person is named if they are either accused in a criminal or civil case - the other individual remaining anonymous - this admittedly has not happened in this case but there is again trial by media. I say this not out of any feelings for this case but due to the principle.

And 90 odd percent of sexual offences are not convicted. So as a rational person I either assume the majority were lying women, making up the crimes or most of those men are guilty but will never be convicted.

I'm not on their jury, I don't have to presume innocence. Most of them are guilty.

sashh · 18/02/2022 04:08

@twelly

I think there is an important principle - there has been no admission of guilt, if this were someone not in the public eye I would be appalled that they were being reported as guilty. This was/is a civil case. I don't think there is a right for people to know how he is funding the settlement - the same would apply to other cases.

We don't know the details - this case did not go to court and therefore there must be a presumption of innocence . I say that because if this were not a member of the royal family or a famous individual I think we would be horrified if they were assumed guilty.

We frequently see cases where a person is named if they are either accused in a criminal or civil case - the other individual remaining anonymous - this admittedly has not happened in this case but there is again trial by media. I say this not out of any feelings for this case but due to the principle.

If he is funding the payment from the public we have a right to know, personally I'd rather see my taxes going to a charity to help victims rather than for HMQ's horses or PA's new Range Rover.

The case did not go to court for 2 reasons

He settled.
The Met police didn't investigate.