Page 3 | King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security

tatalan · 2022-12-20T01:35:35+00:00

Monarch expected to foot £3m bill for guards. [[https://archive.ph/2022.12.19-193449/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/12/19/king-charles-pay-duke-yorks-private-security-refusing-do-prince/#selection-1193.1-1193.56 King Charles to pay for Duke of York’s private security]] Fascinating. What do we think?

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 07:03

That’s the basis of our democratic society.

Personally I don't think Royals are subject to the same democracy, we will have to agree to disagree.

maddy68 · 20/12/2022 07:04

Rich dad pays to keep his son safe.

Fixed it for you. Non story

WeWereInParis · 20/12/2022 07:08

maddy68 · 20/12/2022 07:04

Rich dad pays to keep his son safe.

Fixed it for you. Non story

I'm not sure you've read it right.

Ifailed · 20/12/2022 07:10

if he needs security I think the state should be providing it, and people at risk shouldn't have to pass a morality test to get security.

When we have a police force sufficiently resourced such that they can attend burglaries, uphold the law on the roads and patrol our neighbourhoods I'd possibly agree.

FurAndFeathers · 20/12/2022 07:11

Ukri · 20/12/2022 06:09

Prince Andrew is in the Uk for a start, he’s one person not four, he doesn’t have many public engagements and, wait for it, he’s an elderly man who has been accused of something but has never been prosecuted or been proven guilty. For all we know he could be completely and utterly innocent. Yet his life has been ruined (ok he still has the ability to live a nice quiet life but his life has been changed completely).

I don’t know whether he slept with a 17 year old who had been sex trafficked or not. If he slept with her, who knows whether he knew she had been sex trafficked or wether he thought she was a 17 year old who was loving having an all expenses paid party lifestyle in a multimillion pound mansion/yacht. We don’t know. Likelihood is however that you’d assume she was there willingly. She was 17 and old enough to get married (at the time). There has been no prosecution. He’s innocent until proven guilty in the UK.

King Charles can do whatever he likes with his own money. If he wants to use it to ensure the safety of his younger brother who no doubt proclaims his innocence then that’s a kind and generous thing. If I had the money to protect a sibling whom I loved and believed(or wanted to believe) was innocent then I would do it too.

He’s guilty of sitting a convicted child rapist on the Queen’s throne, attending multiple parties held by the child rapist where underage girls were present (and possibly having sex with one) and prioritising his friendship with that convicted sex offender over his duty as a royal @Ukri

considering all of that, my sympathy for him is limited

paintitallover · 20/12/2022 07:12

I don't think he's innocent and nobody else much does. If he needs security, put him in prison. And if he works again, the Royal Family are surely finished.

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 07:14

Of Andrew was innocent until proven guilty why did the Queen strip him of royal roles & public duties?

Original poster

tatalan · 20/12/2022 07:16

maddy68 · 20/12/2022 07:04

Rich dad pays to keep his son safe.

Fixed it for you. Non story

The opposite rather, it's the younger brother paid for.

The son now fends for himself (as he should).

OP posts:

paintitallover · 20/12/2022 07:17

And why did he pay off the woman taking him to court? I can't see him being rehabilitated, if that's the aim .

Original poster

tatalan · 20/12/2022 07:17

paintitallover · 20/12/2022 07:12

I don't think he's innocent and nobody else much does. If he needs security, put him in prison. And if he works again, the Royal Family are surely finished.

And if he works again, the Royal Family are surely finished.

Going by some responses in this thread, they will be just fine.

OP posts:

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 07:18

the taxpayer will be paying indirectly anyway. Andrew just sold the chalet so surely he can dip into his own pocket?

DomesticShortHair · 20/12/2022 07:20

This is about private security provision.

Harry already has and pays for it. He wanted public security provision (i.e. the Met), paid for by the taxpayer whilst in the UK. The main reason for this is reportedly not about the money, but because police protection has much greater powers/effectiveness- they can close off roads/provide blue light escort, carry firearms, powers of arrest etc. And, most importantly, have access to all of the state’s machinery for intelligence and threat assessment.

The article refers to King Charles paying for private security guards for Andrew, as his public security provision is being withdrawn.

They are both being treated the same as in as non-working royals they aren’t ordinarily permitted routine police protection. The only difference is that Harry is funding his own private protection (as he has an income to do so), where as Charles reportedly may be funding Andrew’s, because he has no income of his own.

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 07:22

where as Charles reportedly may be funding Andrew’s, because he has no income of his own.

He sure lives a lavish lifestyle for someone with no income!

torquewench · 20/12/2022 07:23

paintitallover · 20/12/2022 07:17

And why did he pay off the woman taking him to court? I can't see him being rehabilitated, if that's the aim .

Probably because that would've cost less than it going through court, in the long run. (Financially, at least). And the aggrieved party was happy for it to settle rather than have her past dragged through court, or secure a conviction.

minou123 · 20/12/2022 07:24

Ukri · 20/12/2022 06:22

I work in a very respectable job but still have dodgy friends and associates. I have a school friend whom I love dearly. He has spent many years in prison. I also know that lots of parents at school do a lot of drugs. I know my friends husband has had three affairs with young women in their early twenties (she knows too). I know plenty of people who are not above board with hmrc. I still mix with these people.

Show quote history

Any friends on the sex offenders register?

Any friends who have been convicted of procuring a child for prostitution?

Original poster

tatalan · 20/12/2022 07:25

DomesticShortHair · 20/12/2022 07:20

This is about private security provision.

Harry already has and pays for it. He wanted public security provision (i.e. the Met), paid for by the taxpayer whilst in the UK. The main reason for this is reportedly not about the money, but because police protection has much greater powers/effectiveness- they can close off roads/provide blue light escort, carry firearms, powers of arrest etc. And, most importantly, have access to all of the state’s machinery for intelligence and threat assessment.

The article refers to King Charles paying for private security guards for Andrew, as his public security provision is being withdrawn.

They are both being treated the same as in as non-working royals they aren’t ordinarily permitted routine police protection. The only difference is that Harry is funding his own private protection (as he has an income to do so), where as Charles reportedly may be funding Andrew’s, because he has no income of his own.

The article refers to King Charles paying for private security guards for Andrew, as his public security provision is being withdrawn.

A whole three years after H&Ms security got pulled, and only after Harry went to court for the right to pay for Met security, funny coincidence 😏

OP posts:

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 07:26

@minou123 I think @Ukri would be ok, likely the victims fault!

That80sgirl · 20/12/2022 07:30

Hes a non ce.says alot about rf bootlickers that they pick on H&M but stay quiet about a man whos mummy paid 12 mill to a stranger to not further embarass her!the rf should be abolished quickly

minou123 · 20/12/2022 07:31

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 07:26

@minou123 I think @Ukri would be ok, likely the victims fault!

Quite!!

And before we get the inevitable "PA didn't know"

Yes, yes he did. He told us he knew. He knew because he had to go to NY to break up his friendship with Epstien face to face. oh and stay in his house for the week, because it was convenient 🙄

Ukri · 20/12/2022 07:34

FurAndFeathers · 20/12/2022 07:11

He’s guilty of sitting a convicted child rapist on the Queen’s throne, attending multiple parties held by the child rapist where underage girls were present (and possibly having sex with one) and prioritising his friendship with that convicted sex offender over his duty as a royal @Ukri

considering all of that, my sympathy for him is limited

Show quote history

She wasn't underage. She was 17.

He wasn't a convicted child rapist.

Jimmy Saville used to hang around at Clarence House and the King went to parties at Jimmy Saville's house. He also used to hang about at Kensington palace when Diana lived there. The Queen met him on numerous occasions and he was reportedly friendly with Prince Philip.

Ukri · 20/12/2022 07:36

sinkyt · 20/12/2022 07:26

@minou123 I think @Ukri would be ok, likely the victims fault!

ODFOD. Im a lawyer. We have a legal system in this country which insists quite rightly that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Mumsnut · 20/12/2022 07:40

Perhaps Andrew threatened a few tell-all books if he didn’t get it paid for? It would be his only way of funding it for himself - he isn’t goi g to be able to score TV gigs line H & M.

AnaBannanna · 20/12/2022 07:41

I don't think Andrew should get tax payer funded security. Equally I don't think Haich and M should either. The two are not mutually exclusive.

minou123 · 20/12/2022 07:44

Ukri · 20/12/2022 07:36

ODFOD. Im a lawyer. We have a legal system in this country which insists quite rightly that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Show quote history

And Epstien was found guilty of procuring a 14 year old child for prostitution and put on the sex offenders register.

So yes, he was proven guilty. That's who PA was friends with.

You didn't know that, did you?

superdupernova · 20/12/2022 07:46

The difference between this and the protection Harry and Meghan demanded is that they wanted (tax payer funded) Met security. They claimed it was safer than privately funded security. Princess Anne only gets Met protection when carrying out public duties. Same for Prince Edward and Sophie. I remember it being pointed out years ago when Andrew kicked off about Met protection being withdrawn for his two daughters and having to fund it himself. His own Met protection was later withdrawn when he stopped carrying out royal duties.