Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

They are keeping Andrew out the way, arent they?

715 replies

ssd · 10/04/2021 21:09

On the bbc news, 3 out 4 of the queen's children wished to say something in tribute to their father...

Andrew is obviously been kept on the back burner. They must know there's only so much the less fawning of us can take.

OP posts:
LDom · 13/04/2021 11:45

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

forfucksakenett · 13/04/2021 11:53

@LDom I'm interested to know why you think it's unlikely that he committed a crime?

Roussette · 13/04/2021 12:03

If Andrew were just an ordinary member of the public, he would be guilty of many crimes.
Go and look at his Wiki page. The sections named 'corruption and Kazakstahn'
'Arms sales' and 'Questionable language'

Libby Purves wrote in The Times in January 2015: "Prince Andrew dazzles easily when confronted with immense wealth and apparent power. He has fallen for 'friendships' with bad, corrupt and clever men, not only in the US but in Libya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, wherever.
Sums it up
Backhanders, dodgy deals, corruption

CathyorClaire · 13/04/2021 12:20

By the media, definitely yes. They whipped up such a frenzy in some quarters that there was even a protest demo about Andrew outside Buckingham Palace

Would you prefer a shackled media?

KarensChoppyBob · 13/04/2021 12:23

@Roussette

Hardly surprising after what happened to Epstein

Yes, she is on constant suicide watch.

Didn't the security cameras conveniently stop working around the time of Epstein's alleged suicide?
Roussette · 13/04/2021 12:26

Yes, something like that. And some footage got 'lost' but I think some has been retrieved.

SueSaid · 13/04/2021 12:31

'If Andrew were just an ordinary member of the public, he would be guilty of many crimes. Go and look at his Wiki page. '

Wiki. Must be true then Grin.

Again, he may all think he is an arrogant, privileged arsehole but we need proof before we can say someone is 'guilty of many crimes' or else it all gets a bit defamatory.

Alsohuman · 13/04/2021 12:32

Prince Andrew dazzles easily when confronted with immense wealth and apparent power. He has fallen for 'friendships' with bad, corrupt and clever men, not only in the US but in Libya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, wherever

You could replace the words Prince Andrew with David Cameron and that statement would be equally true. It’s greedy, entitled men the world over. Hopefully he’ll be prosecuted.

I agree @LDom, the likelihood of Andrew ever seeing the inside of a prison is remote. Fortunately I think the next two or three decades spent in exile from public life will hurt him just as much.

Cacacoisfarraige · 13/04/2021 12:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VladmirsPoutine · 13/04/2021 12:38

That is spectacularly bad judgment. Hopefully other members of the royal family take note and learn from it

There's nothing to learn except for that their royal status thus privilege means they can do nigh on whatever they like and most likely get away with it. Far from being a lesson to be learned it's more of a signal to do anything your wildest imagination can fathom knowing you firstly won't have to clean up any mess as a result and probably you'll be protected.

Roussette · 13/04/2021 13:18

Wiki. Must be true then

I set more store by that than some of the rags quoted on these threads.... with their interminable 'sources'
Grin

Roussette · 13/04/2021 13:21

Vladamir

Totally agree. If there are no repurcussions for the likes of Andrew, it's a green light.
He is 60 or 61... the age many retire anyway. He's been able to get away with a lot of dodgy behaviour for decades, now he has retired... not a bad life eh?

Taketheredpill · 13/04/2021 13:25

Fortunately I think the next two or three decades spent in exile from public life will hurt him just as much

There is a simple solution to the terrible prospect of exile from public life ( what an awful existence, in his palace , served by flunkies). Do what you’ve been asked to do, help the FBI with their enquiries, return to public life exonerated

sashh · 13/04/2021 13:33

The only thing Andrew may have done is sleep with a young woman, who happened to be under the age of consent in the particular state where it occurred (of legal age in other states and here), in Ghislane Maxwell's house, which cannot so far be proved and he denies.

No he has allegedly slept with a trafficked teenager.

He could easily give an interview tot he FBI but won't.

Incent until proven guilty only goes so far, Jimmy Saville was never found guilty, two of Stephen Lawrence's killers are still free. At least one of the killers was found not guilty previously.

Avoiding a trial because of who and what you are may technically mean you are innocent but it doesn't mean there is no case to answer.

VladmirsPoutine · 13/04/2021 13:40

To be honest spending a life in exile as a royal doesn't sound altogether a bad life. I mean in as much as being banned from carrying out public duties. Who really wants to be standing in a rainy and cold town shaking hands with the public whilst smiling deliriously at a home-made cup cake?

VladmirsPoutine · 13/04/2021 13:42

Or cutting a ribbon to open the new OAP centre? Sign me up to a life of private villas in LA for a period of difficult and hard reflection on my wayward actions, preferably with one or two cocktails.

Roussette · 13/04/2021 13:46

And travelling the world golfing. Even though Andrew had to give up his charities, within them were hundreds of golf societies all over the world. When the world opens up, he will still have connections and will be popping off to them on the taxpayers' dime.
but not the USA, that would be too risky

KarensChoppyBob · 13/04/2021 13:51

This is worth a watch If anyone's knowledgeable about body language or just interested about the 'tells' in the interview. This was on YouTube r.e. The Maitlis interview nearly a year ago:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=HC40bgA2wKA

Alsohuman · 13/04/2021 14:01

@VladmirsPoutine

To be honest spending a life in exile as a royal doesn't sound altogether a bad life. I mean in as much as being banned from carrying out public duties. Who really wants to be standing in a rainy and cold town shaking hands with the public whilst smiling deliriously at a home-made cup cake?
Obviously Andrew seems to since so many of you on this thread perceive him as desperate to be restored to public life. Exile out of the public gaze with no excuse to dress up in a variety of uniforms would clearly cause him great anguish.
Taketheredpill · 13/04/2021 14:10

Again @Alsohuman, you have the wrong end of the stick, whether by fault or design I don’t know .

People are angry that he / they are attempting to draw a veil over the FBI request to interview him , hoping to put the Epstein issue in the past and move on.

ohforarainyday · 13/04/2021 14:30

I don't think people understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means.

I keep seeing people online who think this phrase - which is purely a legal mechanism - means that anyone who has not been convicted actually IS innocent and that everyone is supposed to just go along with it.

"Presumption of Innocence" is a legal mechanism created to ensure defendants' the right to a fair trial. This legal mechanism has been changed several times, differs from country to country, and there are specific circumstances in which the court system has the power to overrule presumption of innocence and treat a defendant as being guilty without having been found guilty (mostly in clauses contained in anti-terrorism legislation created post 9/11).

"Innocent until proven guilty" has absolutely no bearing outside of a court of law. None of us work for CPS and none of us are jurors, so it simply does not apply.

The idea that Presumption of Innocence means that the general public is legally or morally obligated to act as though someone is innocent is not based on any kind of legal fact and is based on sheer ignorance of the legal system.

Besides, use basic logic for a second. The entire legal system could not exist if everyone had to operate under the assumption everyone is innocent unless convicted. How are police detectives supposed to interrogate suspects, if they have to presume and act as though those suspects are innocent? The entire point of CPS is to assume that suspects are guilty. The entire job of a prosecutor is to tell the jury in the most convincing way possible that the defendant - who obviously has not yet been found guilty - IS guilty. Have you ever seen a criminal trial? The prosecutors will outright say "This man is GUILTY and you must bring back a guilty verdict."

Not to mention, there are many situations, for example those surrounding safeguarding, where people are legally obligated to NOT act as though someone is innocent. If you are the head teacher of a secondary school and multiple pupils have come forward alleging that a teacher raped them, and the police are currently investigating him, then according to safeguarding laws you have to suspend that person until they have been cleared. You certainly cannot say "well innocent until proven guilty!"

And all those situations are actual legal situations. This is just chatting on a message board. It's 100% legal to form, and state, an opinion on someone's guilt. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with the general public or our free speech right to state opinions.

Taketheredpill · 13/04/2021 14:40

Thank you for that @ohforarainyday

Roussette · 13/04/2021 14:41

Great post @ohforarainyday
Very interesting and informative. Smile

ImpatiensI · 13/04/2021 14:55

That looks very interesting @karenschoppybob I'll watch it later.

BeenAsFarAsMercyAndGrand · 13/04/2021 15:13

@ohforarainyday

I don't think people understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means.

I keep seeing people online who think this phrase - which is purely a legal mechanism - means that anyone who has not been convicted actually IS innocent and that everyone is supposed to just go along with it.

"Presumption of Innocence" is a legal mechanism created to ensure defendants' the right to a fair trial. This legal mechanism has been changed several times, differs from country to country, and there are specific circumstances in which the court system has the power to overrule presumption of innocence and treat a defendant as being guilty without having been found guilty (mostly in clauses contained in anti-terrorism legislation created post 9/11).

"Innocent until proven guilty" has absolutely no bearing outside of a court of law. None of us work for CPS and none of us are jurors, so it simply does not apply.

The idea that Presumption of Innocence means that the general public is legally or morally obligated to act as though someone is innocent is not based on any kind of legal fact and is based on sheer ignorance of the legal system.

Besides, use basic logic for a second. The entire legal system could not exist if everyone had to operate under the assumption everyone is innocent unless convicted. How are police detectives supposed to interrogate suspects, if they have to presume and act as though those suspects are innocent? The entire point of CPS is to assume that suspects are guilty. The entire job of a prosecutor is to tell the jury in the most convincing way possible that the defendant - who obviously has not yet been found guilty - IS guilty. Have you ever seen a criminal trial? The prosecutors will outright say "This man is GUILTY and you must bring back a guilty verdict."

Not to mention, there are many situations, for example those surrounding safeguarding, where people are legally obligated to NOT act as though someone is innocent. If you are the head teacher of a secondary school and multiple pupils have come forward alleging that a teacher raped them, and the police are currently investigating him, then according to safeguarding laws you have to suspend that person until they have been cleared. You certainly cannot say "well innocent until proven guilty!"

And all those situations are actual legal situations. This is just chatting on a message board. It's 100% legal to form, and state, an opinion on someone's guilt. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with the general public or our free speech right to state opinions.

Well said. It amazes me how many people clearly have no understanding how our legal system works, and just parrot stock phrases without understanding them.