Andrew, his £3M per year Security and Priti Patel

[Roussette]

Well I never.

Andrew is at it again.

He lost his security last year. He enlisted the help of Priti Patel to have it reinstated. She lobbied Charles's Private Security to this purpose, and someone has leaked that.

He never gives up does he....

The fear of speaking out is now an issue isn’t it ?

You what now!?

It's all on the thread Charles 45% payrise.

Please look at Fawcett's letter offering honours for cash. And Vera99 post of 15.40 on 22/8
Sets it out quite clearly.

Again I don't want to derail this thread with copy and pasting it all here.

Not particularly - it's an oft repeated phrase on MN RF board but my previous comment on Harry being political was.

All apparently tamely ignoring their processes a their reputations and acting flat out illegally, just because a group of posters don’t like the outcomes that were reached by them. It’s quite ridiculous.

Absolutely not. For instance we now Charles is above the law for starters. It's not about just not liking the outcomes, it's about questioning them.

Change never happened from being passive.

So having cast aspersions about the decisions of High Court judges earlier in the thread you now know better than them and the CPS? This thread is hilarious!

You can mock me and other posters all you like. Could I ask you not to? We are all entitled to an opinion you know. We know where this thread will end up if you continue to do that, and as I started it, I am asking you politely to refrain.

Maybe, if you want to discuss the cash for honours you could go on the relevant thread?

I thought that you were critical of the RF being involved in politics when they are supposed to be apolitical but perhaps I misunderstood and you are not.

I am very critical of the RF being involved in politics when they are supposed to be apolitical. I have given examples of when they are not.

so therefore as I asked you - is it OK for Harry to be so when he is a member of the RF?

He has left the working Royal Family. He pays for himself. He is not funded by us. He can have views. It's not like he is spouting off day in day out.

Is that enough of an answer for you? Or not

People are allowed to question our judicial system thanks very much, especially the fucking CPS. No need to laugh at other posters doing so.

hes no longer a working member, but a private citizen free to say what he wants about politicians.

@Serenster

I know you are laughing it up this week though gods know why -
lazy Wills refusing to do his job as president of the FA
Charles bags of cash ‘no case to answer’
Andrew pulling strings behind the scenes to get more money from the tax payer list due to his own offences

Anyway - thank god for the voice of reason
https://www.republic.org.uk/charles_was_accused_of_cash_for_honours_he_must_be_investigated_republic

I think this is very true. Hence the histrionics from both of them over the wearing of uniforms at the late Queen’s funeral, and Andrew wearing his garter robes (which he is entitled to do, but nonetheless)

Ah Ok so that's the let out clause - he's "non working".

I'm not the slightest bit tetchy or stressed. And I'd prefer it if you didn't make this personal.

All I've done is address a poster laughing at other posters for questioning 'process'. Which of course we are quite entitled to do.

As I said before, change never came about from being passive.

A true conflict of interest would be if someone whom RAVEC was protecting was on the Committee.

It's not a conflict of interest when all positions are acknowledged. Or are you saying the highly trained professionals of the Met, Security Services & Home Office civil servants don't do their jobs?

The High Court who reviewed Harry's case disagreed with his view that RAVEC couldn't make unbiased decisions.

As @Serenster very clearly laid out all well functioning committees have a mix of independent & non-indepedent members. If no one could sit on a committee due to a "conflict of interest" under your interpretation very few committees would be formed.

It's been well known for years now that RAVEC has always contained a couple of members from the Royal Household (a simple Google search tells you) so I don't understand why this is suddenly an issue?

@serenster

You are trying to suppress critics by insinuating that posters might be sued .

The very last thing the ‘royals’ and their associates want is court scrutiny . Courts are avoided at all costs - hence Andrew’s mummy forking out

Or are you saying the highly trained professionals of the Met, Security Services & Home Office civil servants don't do their jobs?

I think some of them don;'t, I think some of them are utter scoundrels and anyone defending the met and pretending they're beyond reproach should probably have a bigger think and look back at recent and not so recent history. They are not fit for purpose and haven't been for some time.

Then there’s no need to denigrate other posters for pointing out that those doing the questioning have implicit biases and prejudices of their own, or lack some of the knowledge to assess the functions they are criticising.

Apparently on this thread it’s fine to criticise all and sundary, but not fine to probe any of that criticism without posters trying to shut you down. That’s not a discussion. It’s an echo chamber. It’s clearly what several of the posters want, though.

MNHQ have politely asked us several times recently to not participate in goading or personal attacks, and to report if we see them.

A friendly reminder.

Threads meander a bit, but they should stay largely on topic and as there are other threads specifically on the cash for honours and Charles dodgy behaviour, it's fair to say it should be discussed where its more relevant.

You are trying to suppress critics by insinuating that posters might be sued .

Erm, no!

Definitely do not want an echo chamber. But I also want to ask questions and have opinions on the judicial system without being laughed at, mocked or told I don't know anything about it. I did not denigrate you Serentser, I actually am asking you stop doing that to me and others who question officialdom.