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....

It’s worked perfectly fine for Andrew on a part time basis for over a decade to have private security.

Do you genuinely think the royals and the Met would actually have removed security if they didn’t feel they could be adequately kept safe - given they are the ones that would get the flak if it goes wrong I find that hard to believe.

I actually think it’s more likely there are higher than necessary security details for some of them than a lack of.

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.

But posters are not asking questions and reading the answers from people who do know more, are they?

I politely pointed out the good reasons why RAVEC has members of the Royal Household on it on page 2 of this thread and immediately got mocking responses, essentially saying “just what we’d expect from a royalist”. Information and challenge is definitely not welcomed.

@Serenster

It is your opinion that stuffing committees with ‘royals’ improves them

Many others would beg to differ

You seem to argue for the status quo .

Look where we are with the status quo.

I can only assume you also believe Charles bag of cash shouldn’t have been questioned during the 2 year investigation??

The manner on these threads is definitely much worse than they used to be.

Used to be that posters would robustly, but politely like adults, discuss and disagree.

Some of the mocking and nastiness just makes it pointless even trying to have a discussion.

There’s zero need to be rude to posters that simply have a different opinion

See? Exactly what I’m talking about.

It’s pretty much pointless now

With respect, I don't know you and your opinion is just your opinion, no more or less valid than any other I read here. I think this is the problem, you are presenting yourself as someone who knows more and who has a more valid opinion and that doesn't go down well on a forum. Your good reasons for something happening, is just your idea of good reasons. Its ok to share them but its also ok for others not to agree with them without you saying 'its hilarious, laughable' etc when they do. Some things are factual, like the Queen exempt herself from 160 laws, the King can't commit a crime... but there being a good reason for members of staff being on ravec is a more subjective opinion.

That’s your view of my posts, Iwantcakeeveryday. And, to be honest, the posts I make aren’t really aimed at trying to change your mind, as clearly that would be unlikely. But plenty of other people read these threads and may find my posts informative and helpful. And other posters appreciate that I know what I’m talking about.

I feel that this money should be spent on security for more deserving individuals like our soldiers and police officers.

This is exactly why I post .

I have read so much rubbish spouted by royalists ( they often have no idea they are misinformed and sincerely believe what they are told ) that I couldn’t leave uncountered

If you need to ask any member or recent member of the government to lobby for you, then you almost deserve no as an answer.

@Serenster
So can you apply your self certified expertise to my question please ?

“I can only assume you also believe Charles bag of cash shouldn’t have been questioned during the 2 year investigation??

Which is fine, but your tone is often mocking, dismissive and goading.

Prince Andrew really has it all, a large mansion on a royal estate, mummy and big bro paying off his accusers so he can avoid the courts, big bro paying for his security and now this… and he doesn’t even have to cut ribbons or wave anymore!

Perhaps if you did it with a bit less rudeness it would be a discussion rather than what you turn it into.

And your determination that anyone who disagrees with you over anything is a royalist, and that any royalist is thick and needs educated by you rather than accepting that opinions are just that opinions, is part of it.

👏

Of course, some willl find value and others won't and you are of course free to write what you want. However it is the laughing or saying our opinions are hilarious that is what we are discussing, and I'm just making the point we are all able to have opinions and they do not need to agree with yours to be treated with respect. When you quote me I am assuming its to direct something to me. Other posters think you know what you're talking about, some posters will think you don't. That's very typical on a forum.

As I said earlier, MNHQ have asked us to report goading, not respond to it, and not to make personal remarks. If I said the exact same to you, and thats a feeling many posters have Serenster, then one of you would report it. So lets just try and accept that nobody here is any kind of authority and we are free to listen or ignore, and we shouldn't mock, dismiss or belittle anyone because we think we know better.

Please can we get back to the topic? No need to pile onto a poster and repeatedly call them rude.

Is anyone surprised - I mean, honestly?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Andrew's been around a long time, will know a lot of things, and I very much doubt they can afford for him too to run his mouth off

Much safer to keep him inside the tent pissing out than the other way round, and after all they can always pretend things are other than what they are ... it's not as if they don't have plenty of practise

Btw, I correct the inaccuracies that royalist post and will continue to do so .

No, you don't. You give your opinion.

No I link to facts repeatedly

I am still waiting for some expertise ….