Queen to spend millions funding Prince Andrew's defence

[adrianmolesmole]

I seriously think this will damage her reputation.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-prince-andrew-epstein-millions-legal-case-b1931084.html

Whole family is a joke.

@Roussette
Sorry, the whining remark was uncalled for. I respect you have a different opinion. But here, in France we have elected head of state and its not any better than what you have, and in some ways it is much worse. I don’t see Macron committing to net zero carbon for his millions in assets like the Queen is. No, instead he is President of the Rich cutting taxes left and right for rich people, privatising anything he can, it’s a mess.

Thanks Plan I appreciate that

I do enjoy the discussion and understand you have a different point of view.

Vivé la difference!

@SpindleWhirl

I'd bet good money that Andrew is threatening to 'take people down with him'.

Consider a lot of people doubt that Epstein's death was a suicide, that would be a risky thing to do. Perhaps he is hiding from more than just his legal woes.

Fascinating to see people showing their true hands.

WereH

I do wonder this. I think there might be big financial problems for PA, with all that entails
Nothing concrete out there, apart from a billionaire lifestyle with little income, it's just my gut feeling

@Roussette

WereH

I do wonder this. I think there might be big financial problems for PA, with all that entails
Nothing concrete out there, apart from a billionaire lifestyle with little income, it's just my gut feeling

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, isn't it?

I know who the goose is, unsure about the gander?!

Has this trial actually started yet. Will there be an 11th hour settlement. Like with the Burrell fiasco. It wouldn't surprise me. VG won't win IMHO.

Next hearing is 27th October

Thanks Roussette. It seems to be going on forever.

It's all so grubby and no matter what happens none of it is going to enhance the Royal Family's reputation. Which is too bad for them. Andrew is a revolting lump and I hope he's feeling increasingly anxious about all of this.

It is revolting. And even without the trafficking a crime may well have been committed. Its illegal to pay for sex if the person is under 18 which VG was at the time. (in the UK.) Just found this out. Presumably the law was the same at the time. And if there were girls used for sex at Epstein's place it was legally a brothel.

Pretty much anyone who pays for sex is revolting. 80% of prostitutes are trafficked humans (mostly girls and women) in sex slavery. Men have to realise this, that the happy free hooker is a myth. So while I especially hate the traffickers like Epstein, the men who pay to have sex with these mostly women and girls are the consumer demand that drives the whole sex trafficking industry.

And yes Prince Andrew if he paid for sex would be guilty. But it’s sad to me that he’s not a rarity. Millions of men do this, it is so normalised. And I wish it would stop altogether the sexual exploitation of women and girls.

Of course, he’s entitled to a defence solicitor paid by himself or his family. But I don’t think we should judge the Queen or the RF based on his actions. Every family has a criminal in its ranks somewhere.

There is no “topping up” by tax revenues from U.K. Treasury

HMQ gets an agreed slice of the The Crown Estate's profits. Said profits have taken a covid related hit but HMQ isn't expected to suck up a commensurate drop in income unlike every other poor sap in the country. The SG cannot legally fall in value so yes. She's being topped up by the Treasury.

Why is he not paying for it himself?

Quite.

Royal rich list have him coming in at third with a fortune of approx. £57m.

@CathyorClaire

There is no “topping up” by tax revenues from U.K. Treasury

HMQ gets an agreed slice of the The Crown Estate's profits. Said profits have taken a covid related hit but HMQ isn't expected to suck up a commensurate drop in income unlike every other poor sap in the country. The SG cannot legally fall in value so yes. She's being topped up by the Treasury.

No, she is being topped up by Crown Estates profits, which were £269m this year. Which are not tax revenues.

I read that the Queen is paying in order that the palace can be kept in the loop of what is happening. Rumour has it that they are not happy with the way his defence is behaving and that the palace has been kept in the dark as to what their plans are Obviously this is shaping up to be a PR disaster.

@PlanDeRaccordement and @Roussette

The presidency in France cost €105m in 2019.
Ex presidents cost €10m a year.
And Brigitte Macrons annual expenses are nearly €500k a year.
The only real difference with the RF is we don't get to choose.

But, PdeR, firstly Q is supporting and enabling PA and making the UK appear morally bankrupt, and secondly, if we the people who are funding this gigantic leech don't judge her, then who will? God?

She's just free to do what she likes, when she likes, with whoever's money she likes? And "never complain never explain", yes?

No, she is being topped up by Crown Estates profits

It's all administered by the Treasury but quibbling over the pot it's coming from still doesn't hide the fact funds which would have been spent on public projects are being diverted into the Queen's pocket.

But, PdeR, firstly Q is supporting and enabling PA and making the UK appear morally bankrupt,

She’s not supporting or enabling anything. She is funding a defence solicitor for Prince Andrew which is everyone’s right under the law. Its not an indication of a “morally bankrupt” country to have a defence solicitor! Every other criminal gets one, even the ones that cannot pay.

Auroreforet: How does 105 million on a president (love him or hate him) who actually does stuff (rightly or wrongly) equate to 345 million on a bunch of grouse-massacring wasters?

I think there are a quite a few differences between F and GB systems, other than that they get to choose.

@CathyorClaire

No, she is being topped up by Crown Estates profits

It's all administered by the Treasury but quibbling over the pot it's coming from still doesn't hide the fact funds which would have been spent on public projects are being diverted into the Queen's pocket.

No, the funds in question would never have been spent on public projects because of the laws regarding the sovereign grant and how it cannot be reduced. Laws that are hundreds of years old. So, no funds are not being “diverted” , they are going where the law says they should go. You don’t have to like it. But it’s not a change or anything new.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Auroreforet: How does 105 million on a president (love him or hate him) who actually does stuff (rightly or wrongly) equate to 345 million on a bunch of grouse-massacring wasters?

I think there are a quite a few differences between F and GB systems, other than that they get to choose.

I think you mean £82.4m as £345m is the Queen’s private wealth. £82.4m was the Sovereign grant she received in 2019/20. The Queen “does stuff” too by the way....

[quote Auroreforet]**@PlanDeRaccordement* and @Roussette*

The presidency in France cost €105m in 2019.
Ex presidents cost €10m a year.
And Brigitte Macrons annual expenses are nearly €500k a year.
The only real difference with the RF is we don't get to choose.[/quote]
Queen “cost” £82.4m in 2019/20
Which is slightly cheaper than Macron as €105 = £90m

So yes, an elected head of state would cost the U.K. the same is does now, if not a bit more.