RF covering for Andrew?

[flippantlydone]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/28/dubious-use-of-the-freedom-of-information-act-stopping-access-to-files-on-prince-andrew-researchers-say

Correct. You have followed what I said .

Why not start a poll in chat about a family business where the CEO is a 76 year old man with cancer who is having chemo, and ask if you think his son should be helping out with the business more instead of going abroad on holiday twice in two months for 17 days?

Except you missed out completely my whole point about the nature of articles and how they drive people's thoughts and comments. That's very relevant. As I said though everyone does have different opinions on this depending on their level of exposure.

I am glad you agree the article was irrelevant and it is about the public's comments.

I think I need to go and look at Guardian, Independent and some outside the UK press about this... and read their comments!

@JoyousGreyOrca you are the one saying it is most - why on Earth would I start a poll? 😂

Again you have misunderstood. How can they even comment if there is no article? This is getting a bit silly now.

@dorathexplorer because you are challenging what I said.

At the same time maybe start a poll about whether an alleged rapist of a sex trafficked teenager should be forced to be interviewed by the police?

Anyway I stand by my original post which I am entitled to do without being accused of insinuation and gotchas.

Prince Andrew is apparently too terrified to ever visit the US again after fresh calls in the US for the FBI to probe Epstein.
I would absolutely love it if Andrew was made to face justice. But he will not. He is above the law.

They obviously read the article. About non attendance and another holiday. And they commented accordingly

Let's leave it shall we? We obviously misunderstand each other. I'm off for a cuppa ☕🫖🍵

@JoyousGreyOrca this is my last comment to you for now . Your response

"@dorathexplorer because you are challenging what I said. "

I don't think anyone on this Board has the right to demand polls to be created because they hold an opposing opinion from someone else. 😂 That would make for very tedious reading indeed. We need to accept that two - two million - people can have different views about things .

Good idea @Extiainoiapeial 🫖

What public backlash ?

Apparently in the daily mail readers comments @Mylovelygreendress !

Yes I have read the comments @jeffgoldblum but there are just as many supportive comments as critical ones as far as I can see.
The fact that this isn’t headline news proves it isn’t quite the public backlash H and M supporters would like !
And I am amused that the DM is now regarded as the reliable source of information!

The op doesn't like being accused of those things @Mylovelygreendress ! 🤷‍♀️

I simply want accuracy. I am not a supporter of any of the Royal Family or Harry and Meghan.

There’s no need to pick on one comment and ram it in to the ground. It gets tedious.

All that JoyousGreyOrca was saying is that they have noticed a less deferential tone in general in on-line discourse about the royals of late, and in particular about William and Catherine . And they used the DM as an example.

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to say. I have noticed it too.

It’s quite interesting because the DM have been fairly supportive up to this point. Of course you can’t trust any of them as their motivations are commercial but they are also interested in influence.

As a Republican. I am in two minds about this.

On the one hand I realise that it must be a terribly difficult line as a royal to draw. William wants to protect his family but is also beholden to the press for his publicity, without which the RF wouldn’t exist. And the tabloid press has been allowed to become so powerful in the UK, they will probably always win.

On the other hand, I want the serious press not to be too deferential and ask intelligent and probing questions about finances. The King and Queen, those in the top job, seem to have a protective bubble around them when it comes to the press. And I want to know, for example, how much was known about Andrew’s nefarious business activities within the Royal family itself and when? If they call it ‘The Firm’ then the CEO needs to know what is going on surely? How come he has been allowed to continue making these business deals?

Edited: that’s a bit of an aside about Andrew admittedly but I’m interested in why the press isn’t asking that question? Or have I missed it?

Great post @Alongleadtimeplease

Andrew has been protected and covered up for since time immemorial. It takes a trafficked woman to take him to civil court to open the floodgates on the rest of his nefarious activities which he has been up to his neck in for decades. His mother QE2 was soft with him, he rode roughshod over advisers, personal protection officers, aides and courtiers and his Mother let him.

Apparently (disclaimer.. no idea if this is true but I have read it a few times)... his aides would go to QE2 and point out possible pitfalls and problems and she would always side with him. Obviously people knew what he was up to, there have been too many scandals, dodgy deals, backhanders, him keeping company with the worst sort of people from ME oligarchs to arms dealers but no one seemed able to stop him because he had the support of the Queen.
That's how I read the situation anyway, and I've read a lot as it was happening and since....

@JoyousGreyOrca I work in a public- facing job in a very wealthy neighborhood. The residents are currently away, many in Europe, for winter recess. They also go out of town for Christmas holidays and the last two weeks of August. In the summer, many parents take off Friday's and go out of town with the kids for a three -day weekend. William just seems to be following the pattern of his generation.

Also, both of my parents died from cancer. Neither of them expected their children to change their lives. We moved and lived in different states, had children, went on vacation, etc.

Charles waited a long time to become king. Let him decide on his own level of activity and involvement along with his wife and medical advisory team.

Yes it’s the “trafficked woman” part that is really mind-boggling when you think about it.

If Epstein hadn’t been caught … well it makes you wonder … would Prince Andrew’s activities, business and otherwise, still be covered up now?

I know a civil servant complained about his suitability as a trade envoy didn’t they?

But, being cynical, it makes me wonder how much else is being covered up too? Relating to all family members I mean?

Why do Royalty get a free pass? If they are representing the country, they need to be subject to proper scrutiny.

If they are representing the country, they need to be subject to proper scrutiny.

There's never proper scrutiny. If questions are tabled in parliament they are shut down. Lord Foulkes has said that parliament clerks have vetoed every single attempt to raise concerns about Andrew or other members of the royal family.

He says this....

“There is very great ­sensitivity in parliament and ­particularly in the House of Lords, as you would expect, and a lot of ­deference to the monarch, which is understandable in many ways.
“But I think one of the things is to separate the monarch or head of state from the royal family, the rest of them. “Where does the royal family stop? All the grandchildren, the cousins, the nieces, the nephews … It’s not defined. The restriction can be used in relation to any of them.

There's never proper scrutiny. If questions are tabled in parliament they are shut down. Lord Foulkes has said that parliament clerks have vetoed every single attempt to raise concerns about Andrew or other members of the royal family

Spot on, @Extiainoiapeial, and that's why I suggested I'd be amazed if Lord Faulkes gets any further than others have

Kudos to him for trying though ...

How are they going to probe Epstein when he died 6 years ago?