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

What an analogy.

Someone on UC having a coffee or £89million being given to RF, and them holding themselves up as moral leaders, a beacon of all that is good and a focus of supposedly national identity and pride.
I think we're allowed to criticise given that

Daft, isn't it? And a tad offensive. I'm just joining in the playground stuff while some paint dries tbh.

The Andrew fanclub will keep on fanclubbing.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

Maybe she shouldn't have the money if she can't invest it ethically and pisses it away on creeps

What a wonderful idea. Let’s check the expenses of every single person who receives public funding and make sure it’s all spent the way you perceive as worthy.

It is being checked isn't it, though.

Anyone on benefits will tell you the scrutiny they have to go through. Don't know how many threads we have had here on MN, from people explaining the hardships of getting taxpayer money, shows on TV on funds being cut for the most minute reasons.

For the Andrew fanclub, if you're lucky he'll make it into the next edition of the below card game, so you can reminisce on the exploits of a few other public funds recipients.

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/193720602028

Anyone on benefits will tell you the scrutiny they have to go through. Don't know how many threads we have had here on MN, from people explaining the hardships of getting taxpayer money, shows on TV on funds being cut for the most minute reasons

That might be the case, but once the money is theirs they can spend it as they want. No one tells them what to spend it on.

I’m a fan of Andres’s, whatever it is he’s done he ought to answer for that.

This is not a thread about this though, it’s about his mother paying for his defence, allegedly.

His mother is paying for his defence after pretending he didn't need one, allowing him to evade service and greatly increasing the cost of this waster, at the taxpayers' expense.

That's fact, not allegation. The only thing we don't yet know is the size of the final bill.

Well, everybody is entitled to a defence in court, and she’s spending her money, whether some posters like it or not.

I fail to see the need to sharpen my pitchfork for this.

There is no 'allegedly' about it
She is

If he'd have faced up to this years ago maybe he/we wouldn't be in this position and the millions that are going to have to be spent on him.

He CHOSE to ignore it despite saying in the carcrash interview he had offered to help. He lied.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost and it's going to be very very damaging to the monarchy, and expensive

It's not her money.
It's being taken from the Duchy of Lancaster, I wonder what the tenants feel about their rents being spent on defending a n arrogant man who was besties with a paedophile

"I fail to see the need to sharpen my pitchfork for this."

How low would you like our institutions' standards to sink? Can we have some kind of benchmark please?

Or is it pure corruption and total debauchery you're after?

OK then, let me go round to my landlord and tell him I’m not happy with him spending the rent I pay on something. I’m sure he’ll agree and will only spend the way I find suitable.
Can’t see why not.

^Or is it pure corruption and total debauchery you're after?*

No, legal defence, if you’re ok with that, what with it being a human right and so on.

In my opinion, the royal family isn't so great anyway but this is bound to create some controversy. He's not exactly destitute is he so he should pay his own legal fees.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

^Or is it pure corruption and total debauchery you're after?*

No, legal defence, if you’re ok with that, what with it being a human right and so on.

PMSL then he can pay for his defence himself, along with the debts on the chalet in France.

Or go bankrupt like any other fucker who's spent way beyond his means for decades.

The landlord point is ridiculous.

@Roussette

It's not her money. It's being taken from the Duchy of Lancaster, I wonder what the tenants feel about their rents being spent on defending a n arrogant man who was besties with a paedophile

A landlords money is not actually theirs, it’s being taken from tenants who should have a say in how it’s being spent?

I didn't say that.

I said I wonder how they feel about it being used for this purpose.

The Telegraph stated that the Queen’s annual income for her own Duchy of Lancaster estate is being used to pay for the legal fees, which is around $2000 an hour. The whole legal cost is expected to be in the millions, with the civil lawsuit expected to stretch on for months or possibly years. The media outlet suggested that Queen Elizabeth has already spent “millions of pounds” even though the case is just getting started

No matter what he's done he's entitled to legal defence like anyone else and given the high profile of the case and the damage it can do to the whole Royal family they would be mad not to fund it, if he can't fund it himself. The other side are going to have some top lawyers for sure.

"A landlords money is not actually theirs, it’s being taken from tenants who should have a say in how it’s being spent?"

To anyone who RTFT, Roussette clearly was not saying that.

But if you want to put it like that, we the taxpayer are actually the landlords and Q should have been evicted from the DoL several centuries ago, as nobody really gives a toss what Henry IV wanted in 1399?

What would happen if the Queen died before the case is heard, decisions made. I wonder would Charles then keep paying.

TooMuch

Now that is an interesting thought. The Q has enabled PA for years, she bankrolls him and his ex-wife, she pays off his lawsuits (like the Swiss chalet lawsuit, although there are conflicting reports on this, I need to give this possible scenario more thought.....

All I know is, he would be nowhere near protected as he is now

@Roussette

It's not her money. It's being taken from the Duchy of Lancaster, I wonder what the tenants feel about their rents being spent on defending a n arrogant man who was besties with a paedophile

Epstein wasn’t a pedophile. He was a sex trafficker. And yes some of the girls were underage, but they were not prepubescent. Pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. And a pedophile sexually molests or assaults prepubescent children.

Epstein wasn’t a pedophile. He was a sex trafficker

Ahhh... that makes it all OK then.

Just bear in mind Plan and you live in France I believe, there are three unnamed 12 year olds who were sent from Paris to JE as a birthday present. Prepubesency is not tied to an age. They could've been prepubescent. If he hadn't done a Fred West, he would've been called a paedophile no doubt. He escaped that.

I am aghast and gobsmacked that you are defending Jeffrey Epstein*. Your post seems to make out that it's OK then as he 'wasn't a paedophile'.

If it's just because you want to pick me up on anything to correct me, to score points, please don't on something like this.

No need to reply saying you weren't defending him. That is how it comes across to me*.

@Roussette

Epstein wasn’t a pedophile. He was a sex trafficker

Ahhh... that makes it all OK then.

Just bear in mind Plan and you live in France I believe, there are three unnamed 12 year olds who were sent from Paris to JE as a birthday present. Prepubesency is not tied to an age. They could've been prepubescent. If he hadn't done a Fred West, he would've been called a paedophile no doubt. He escaped that.

I am aghast and gobsmacked that you are defending Jeffrey Epstein*. Your post seems to make out that it's OK then as he 'wasn't a paedophile'.

If it's just because you want to pick me up on anything to correct me, to score points, please don't on something like this.

No need to reply saying you weren't defending him. That is how it comes across to me*.

I’m not defending Epstein, I am simply correcting you on the crime for which he was prosecuted for. My post does not indicate being a sex trafficker is ok. You are simply saying that because you know that calling Prince Andrew best friend’s with a pedophile was a baseless exaggeration. Stick to the facts please.

Of course, you can not stick to facts but if you put falsehoods in several posts, that only detracts from your credibility on everything you say. Up to you.

Jeffrey Epstein once had three 12-year-old girls from poor families flown in from France as a sick birthday present for himself, according to newly unearthed court documents.

Virginia Giuffre — who has claimed Epstein and his gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell coerced her into being a “sex slave” when she was 15 — said in court papers that the girls who were flown in were molested by the financier and returned to France the following day.

“The worst one that I heard from his own mouth was this pretty 12 year old girls he had flown in for his birthday,” she said, according to the document.

“It was a surprise birthday gift from one of his friends and they were from France. I did see them, I did meet them,” she said.

She said they were a gift from Epstein’s acquaintance Jean-Luc Brunel, a model scout.

Of course you're not defending him, of course you'd say that. But if it were me... I would let the term 'paedophile' go when it comes to JE. He escaped conviction for the worst of his crimes.
What falsehoods in several posts?
You are not my official fact checker you know.

Anyway, as I say, in my book, he is a paedophile, and I'll call him what I like thanks. And yes it is up to me.

I'd do most things for my sons but actually, I don't think I'd be funding this.

DS1 got a ticket for going through a bus lane when he'd just passed his test. It was a lot of money to him at the time but he paid it himself, despite me being comfortably able to. Natural consequences and they don't learn if life's too easy.

Obviously not the same thing at all, but even more reason not to fund PA. He has money/assets of his own and even if he's convinced he's not guilty he (and the Queen) must surely admit that he's brought this on himself with some very poor judgement