King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security

[tatalan]

Monarch expected to foot £3m bill for guards.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2022.12.19-193449/www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/12/19/king-charles-pay-duke-yorks-private-security-refusing-do-prince/#selection-1193.1-1193.56" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security

Fascinating. What do we think?

Andrew kept saying he would co-operate and the refusing to.
You don't get written questions ahead of time for a police interview.

The man is guilty as hell.

Andrew kept saying he would co-operate and the refusing to.
That's not true. He won't cooperate how the FBI want him to. He'll give them written evidence and according to his lawyers, they have been in contact with the DoJ 3 times to try and do just that but the DoJ have turned the offer down. They want to speak to him in person and his lawyers say no.

You don't get written questions ahead of time for a police interview.
But the FBI are not interviewing him as an offender. They've said they just want to talk to him to get information and evidence against others. I've already linked all that above.
However, if in the course of that interview they manage to get him to self-incriminate, they can then prosecute him. His lawyers would not risk that.
On the other hand, the FBI do not want to release all their questions in writing because that gives away what they know - similar, as you say, to police not giving away the questions before a criminal interview.
It's an impasse.

The man is guilty as hell.
As an individual, you* *can say and believe that but, fortunately for us all, a court has to have actual and sufficient evidence. It's not decided by people who have already made up their mind on guilt or who have pre-formed dislike for the accused.

I’m sitting here thinking I’m older than Andrew but I’m not ‘elderly.’ My mother is elderly.

On the other hand, I think the description of ‘elderly’ would really really piss the entitled and deliberately care-less Andrew off, so have at it.

Whoops, that post was meant for the pp whom you are responding too. But I agree with you, age does not excuse any behaviour now or in the past..

Remember that video of PA?

"Standing by the towering 15ft-high solid oak front door, Prince Andrew gives a nod and a cheery wave to the pretty brunette as she leaves the £63 million Manhattan mansion.
He appears entirely at ease but then, for a split second, glances around the door as if to check that no one had witnessed the brief encounter."

If it quacks like a duck...

What you're saying is that they're not indicting anyone in the US but they want to indict A but they're refraining from doing so because the monarch wouldn't like it

My fault if I didn't put it properly, Marsha; I'm another who agrees that Andrew's never been convicted of anything so is innocent in law, and you're quite correct that the US wanted him for information rather than to drag him to court in chains

However my entire point is that he'd never have seen the inside of a witness box, either here or in the US, even if there was endless evidence against him - and yes, that's because it wouldn't suit the RF

However my entire point is that he'd never have seen the inside of a witness box, either here or in the US, even if there was endless evidence against him - and yes, that's because it wouldn't suit the RF.

If the RF could stop any court case against him, how did VG manage to sue? The Anerican judge could have ruled that her settlement with Epstein precluded her from suing him. Instead he ruled in VGs favour. He later made a ruling against PA'S lawyers dragging out the court case. So it doesn't look to me like PA received any benefit from being related to the queen.
True, if VG hadn't settled and he'd gone to court, he wouldn't have to give evidence. But that's true for anyone in the uk and us court systems.

The Anerican judge could have ruled ...

Yes, the American judge, Marsha, and even I wouldn't expect the RF to have that much influence in America; in fact given the history it's easy to foresee the risks if they tried

Clearly nobody can easily be prevented from bringing a case against them, but what happens in response to that is very much in their hands. It's true nobody in the UK can be forced to give evidence, but I simply don't believe Andrew would have been allowed to enter a courtroom no matter what he'd done - not when we were expected to swallow the ridiculous story trotted out to keep Burrell out of the witness box, and that was with him being prosecuted rather than the RF

Your argument seems to be contradictory, puzzled, that he can be sued and prosecuted and the RF can't stop it. But he won't ever see the inside of a courtroom in the US because the RF will/can stop it.

You accept that PA can be sued. Indeed he has been sued. The outcome of VGs case against him was in her hands and not his. She decided to settle. She could have forced him to trial if she had wanted to and the court Judge, Lewis Kaplan, had ruled in her favour throughout PA's objections so there's no reason to think she was being prevented from doing so.

I believe she can't sue in the UK because she's out of time. That would apply to everyone not just the RF.

The UK police are not pursuing criminal charges which I'm sure people would say is a cover up. Except the FBI have not charged him either. Indeed they've not charged anyone. And as you've said the RF don't have sufficient influence there to sway those decisions,so maybe it's because they don't have enough evidence. Just a thought.

There is absolutely nothing, other than your own personal belief, maybe tinged by your disagreement with the institution of monarchy(?), to suggest that he is not in court because he's a member of the RF. Nor, if he was charged, that the RF could prevent a court case from proceeding.

You've lost the plot @MarshaMelrose if you think PA has not been protected.

Your argument seems to be contradictory, puzzled, that he can be sued and prosecuted and the RF can't stop it. But he won't ever see the inside of a courtroom in the US because the RF will/can stop it

I agree it could look that way, Marsha, if coming from the POV that Andrew's subject to the same process as everyone else - but very obviously he isn't, because not everyone else has a mother/brother in whose name the law operates and who need to control the narrative quite as much as the RF

Different circumstances of course, but as said we saw what legal interference they're capable of in the risible story designed to keep Burrell out of the witness box ... unless of course anyone really believes that the allegedly very well informed Queen knew nothing about this and hadn't queried it before, and it would be difficult to reason with those with this kind of unthinking faith

Tell me how.

I agree it could look that way, Marsha, if coming from the POV that Andrew's subject to the same process as everyone else - but very obviously he isn't, because not everyone else has a mother/brother in whose name the law operates and who need to control the narrative quite as much as the RF.

I've given you facts as to how he's been pursued by both individuals and policing bodies, and how the courts have shown him no favour.
You're saying that despite the fact that he's actually been sued and the US courts won't care about his title, he'll never go to court because he's the King's brother. But that's just a presumption and a belief founded on your distrust of the RF. Where are your facts? That the Queen remembered a conversation with Paul Burrell? That's not legal interference. The Queen might well have lied. But that's not behind the scenes influencing or dictating to the government.

Plenty of posters have already pointed it out. Why are you motivated to defend a sweaty, pizza loving, nonce?

But they didn't tell me I'd lost the plot, you did.

So you explain how he has been protected.

You're saying that despite the fact that he's actually been sued and the US courts won't care about his title, he'll never go to court because he's the King's brother

Not quite, Marsha; I said "I simply don't believe Andrew would have been allowed to enter a courtroom no matter what he'd done" which is, as you correctly pointed out, an opinion

However it's an opinion based on a long and depressing history of the institution protecting only themselves, even if that means outright deceit and chucking "outsiders" over the side

However it's an opinion based on a long and depressing history of the institution protecting only themselves, even if that means outright deceit and chucking "outsiders" over the side.

We're all entitled to our opinions. It would be a boring world if we all thought the same. But opinions aren't facts. And there are no facts to prove that A could never end up in a courtroom. Indeed, the very events of this year and last show that he is subject to being sued just like anyone else and there is nothing to suggest that if VG had not taken the money, he wouldn't have been in court this year.

Sorry Marsha but of course he wouldn't. The Palace would have moved heaven and earth to avoid that.

They couldn't save him from one woman, Virginia Guiffre. How would they save him from the FBI?

I agree that they would have done everything possible to prevent him ending up in a court room, Including him disappearing to a life somewhere with no extradition order.

But that is no different than any other family that has multi millions to spend and protect. (I am not justifying it)

But that is one of the few things that I could see ending the monarchy.