Andrew was on the church walkabout this morning

[meh2022]

I was surprised (and not in a good way) to see Andrew join the rest of the royal family at the Christmas service at Sandringham church this morning. He even shook hands with at least one member of the crowd. Surely he should be kept away from the public if the royal family have any desire whatsoever to keep the monarchy going? What is Charles thinking in allowing him to join them?!

I went to church this morning, everyone who turned up was welcomed, that's how churches should be. Convicted criminals in prison are allowed to attend religious services. Most church services begin with an act of penitence so it seems perfectly appropriate that Andrew should be there with his family.

The Christmas service is not included on the Court Circular. It’s not an official engagement

The walk to the church is included in the Court Circular. It is an official engagement.

@cruzrack

I haven't seen anyone defend him, just point out that not even the King can ban someone from attending church

Age of consent in the USA is 18. Trafficked people cannot give consent. Take your pick.

I checked back to Christmas Day 2018 and it’s not mentioned there either.

Have you a link to that news?

because it wasn’t last year. Nor 2019. Or 2018. Or 2017.

but if you have a better source than the Royal family website Court Circular I’d be interested to see it.

Nor 2016.

And it’s not a case of the site not working as all years have activities up to the 23rd of December.

The walk was cancelled. I have already said that. Even the Royal Family do not add events to the Court Circular that have not happened.

The walk and shaking hands with the public is a Royal Family engagement and counted as "work". Andrew could sneak into the church as he has before instead of taking part in Royal Family public engagements.

Rape is very rarely witnessed by others. It still happens a lot.

The church service is included. You are right not the walk just the service.

2018 www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=25%2F12%2F2018&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=25%2F12%2F2018&id=

2017 www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=25%2F12%2F2017&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=25%2F12%2F2017&id=

The walk wasn’t cancelled last year, it was the first one the Cambridge children did.

However even if it was officially cancelled how does that explain all the other years?

Have you a link for your assertion that it is included?

@JustLyra A quick google shows you are wrong.
www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a38566464/royals-potentially-canceling-christmas-walk-2021/

No, we have a basic standard for justice, which is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Neither you nor I know what happened, but my standards aren't so low that I'd condemn someone on the basis of Hello Magazine and the gutter press. I keep an open mind.

@MintJulia You are wrong. That applies in a court of law, nowhere else. Just like perjury. Lie in a court and you can be sent to prison. You don't get sent to prison for most lying outside of a court room.

Andrew hasn't been convicted of anything, and should spend Christmas with which ever relatives will have him. He should attend church on Christmas Day whether a free man or imprisoned, if he chooses to. If someone chooses to shake his hand that's up to them.

To think he will hide inside forever is somewhat naïve.

@antelopevalley

And 2018? It isn't on the Court Circa then either.

Nor does it say anywhere that the Church visit is classed as work. All that magazine article says is that the queen cancelled it because she didn't want loads of the public to gather and spread covid. Because the amount of cases was so bad last Christmas that there were fears that there could be another lockdown.

i don't need to. A nonce is a paedophile, and to be a paedophile someone has to be abusing someone under the age of 12.

17 isn't 12.

You can't ban people from church even if they are convicted (Andrew has not been) someone offered their hand and he politely shook it, no more - no conspiracy

@ArtixLynx
I never called him a paedophile. I explained two situations in which it seemed likely that he had committed a sexual offence, not counting the money he paid to his victim. There's always someone obsequious enough to defend a sex offender.