Charles may pay for Andrew's security

Grany

Charles pays for Andrew’s security with our money.

Does that mean when I buy things, I'm using my employer's money to do so?

Or if someone uses their state pension to buy something, they are spending the Government's money?

Of course not. Once the money is in a person's possession, it is THEIR money. It does not still belong to the source of the income.

Norah

Urmstongran

I think I’m more shocked by the colossal amount of money involved for PA’s security (regardless of who pays it).

£3 million p.a.?
How much do these security firms charge p.a.? Multiplied by several operatives to cover shift patterns & sick leave etc.

But £3 million? Sheesh. A mind boggling sum of money.

Someone will be earning, from the King's money, out into the economy, IF PA's private security happens - paid as stated.

Good for the security firm.

Security for the royals is over £100 million its paid for by the metropolitan police.

HurdyGurdy

Grany

Charles pays for Andrew’s security with our money.

Does that mean when I buy things, I'm using my employer's money to do so?

Or if someone uses their state pension to buy something, they are spending the Government's money?

Of course not. Once the money is in a person's possession, it is THEIR money. It does not still belong to the source of the income.

We should be paying for one Head of State who main role is to uphold the laws of our constitution and have a word with a PM who breaks these laws the royals don’t do that. Is it any wonder the country is in the state it’s in then. So Charles gives the money we give him to pay for a brother who doesn’t work mind you none of the royals work hardly at all and spend public money on their own pass times.

We need a republic

Grany

HurdyGurdy

Grany

Charles pays for Andrew’s security with our money.

Does that mean when I buy things, I'm using my employer's money to do so?

Or if someone uses their state pension to buy something, they are spending the Government's money?

Of course not. Once the money is in a person's possession, it is THEIR money. It does not still belong to the source of the income.

We should be paying for one Head of State who main role is to uphold the laws of our constitution and have a word with a PM who breaks these laws the royals don’t do that. Is it any wonder the country is in the state it’s in then. So Charles gives the money we give him to pay for a brother who doesn’t work mind you none of the royals work hardly at all and spend public money on their own pass times.

We need a republic

Yawn.

Wasn't there a real bunfight on here when M and H wanted security for their family when they came to the UK ? I dont remember anyone saying they should have security even though they had death threats yet the mman who used trafficked females for fun is entitled? Explain to me the reasons for the different outcome...please.
I dont care about any of them but surely if Randy Andy gets secruity the GGC of the late queen should qualify too ..after all THEY haven't trashed the family.

We don't know if PA used trafficked females for fun and if he did, we don't know if he knew they were trafficked.

Smileless2012

We don't know if PA used trafficked females for fun and if he did, we don't know if he knew they were trafficked.

Yes of course. He paid 12 mil to a woman he didn't use and didn't know was dodgy/illegal. As anyone would.

paddyann54

Wasn't there a real bunfight on here when M and H wanted security for their family when they came to the UK ? I dont remember anyone saying they should have security even though they had death threats yet the mman who used trafficked females for fun is entitled? Explain to me the reasons for the different outcome...please.
I dont care about any of them but surely if Randy Andy gets secruity the GGC of the late queen should qualify too ..after all THEY haven't trashed the family.

Exactly paddyann.

Agree with Monica, I heard from someone serving with him how much he was disliked, you kept away from him! However it's up to C if he funds security, it's wages for someone.

And for the second time rather than see the man she accused go to trial, she took a pay off. As you would.

Cabinet discusses plans for king's coronation as health strikes continue - theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/dec/20/rishi-sunak-health-nhs-strikes-nurses-ambulance-pay-offers-live?page=with:block-63a1a45e8f08d81fc5001ac1#block-63a1a45e8f08d81fc5001ac1

Smileless2012

We don't know if PA used trafficked females for fun and if he did, we don't know if he knew they were trafficked.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies if you like the result. It’s a long-standing rule.
No we don’t know.
But we can surmise from what we read. Same as we surmise unproven things about other posters on GN.
Such fun.

Not at all. Innocent until proven guilty is the law whether we like it or not.

Smileless2012

Not at all. Innocent until proven guilty is the law whether we like it or not.

Yes, I know, but it’s not the impression I get.🤣

There are a lot of men out there "innocent until proven guilty" breaking the law right now.

They aren't carrying around a certificate of innocence

They are just men who are getting away with it.

And not being able to recognise that, puts other women in danger.

Nor me Mollygo.

Women breaking the law too I should think. Another thing that puts women in danger is accepting a payout rather than having your day in court, and doing everything you can to have your abuser tried and found guilty.

People have representation, she probably took advice.

The other issue with women going to court with this type of allegation, is that if they cannot provide enough evidence he is found innocent and she is branded a liar.

Many women face this awful decision and its not an easy one

Yes that's true but for me choosing not to pursue a case due to insufficient evidence and the worry of securing a conviction, is not the same as deciding not too in favour of a substantial financial pay out.

Also, the Crown Prosecution does not allow a case to go court unless it's reasonably confident of success.

Grany

Norah

Urmstongran

I think I’m more shocked by the colossal amount of money involved for PA’s security (regardless of who pays it).

£3 million p.a.?
How much do these security firms charge p.a.? Multiplied by several operatives to cover shift patterns & sick leave etc.

But £3 million? Sheesh. A mind boggling sum of money.

Someone will be earning, from the King's money, out into the economy, IF PA's private security happens - paid as stated.

Good for the security firm.

Security for the royals is over £100 million its paid for by the metropolitan police.

Apart from what is paid for the royals, which is not the point, the King may do as he wishes with his money. The King paying for PA security will release some of the King's own money into the economy.

Smileless that's conjecture, we have no idea whatmade her decision for her

All we can do is loom at how difficult this sort of cases are to get convicted

We wouldn't feel badly about anyone else getting compensation

And for a person in a public case, slated across the media, protecting her future financial security where she now is recognisable, is actually quite sensible.

Too many women are abused and carry that legacy in mental health issues and tarnished reputation amongst peers, communities, even their own families

This man, in the public eye, will now find it very difficult to reoffend.

And he may have been found innocent as 99% of those accused of this type offence, ultimately are.

I cannot condemn her in any way

One thing I’ve learnt, is that if there’s any occasion where the accuser can be shown to have ‘made an error or misremembered’ any evidence it will be implied that we can’t be certain that they haven’t ‘made an error or misremembered in current evidence. Certainly that would be a big incentive to take the sizeable amount of money offered, however wrong that is.
But again it’s conjecture, surmising, deciding on the basis of hearsay etc.

Yes it is conjecture VS and it's conjecture that PA agreed to pay because he was guilty.

She'd already received a substantial pay out and like PA must do, live with the knowledge that the case was never proved, either way.

The fact is that the man paid

And he paid knowing that some would view it as an admission of guilt

But also knowing it would not be proof of guilt and that there are those, even women, who would defend him

I do not think PA ever knowingly sought out underage girls, but he is a stupid and arrogant man and I suspect, if anyone, especially someone official, warned him off Epstein, and they did, his immediate reaction would be to seek his company, on the grounds that no-one was going to tell him who to choose as friends.

I doubt he ever considered what problems that might land him in. Epstein was rich, generous and massaged PA's ego and PA convinced himself that he was being a loyal friend rather than a gullible fool. Younger sons of the aristocracy, with not enough to occupy their time and considerably less wealthy than their older brothers, are drawn like moths to wealthy people, who will finance their pleasures, for the cachet or usefullness of having them in their social group. In return the recipient asks no uncomfortable questions

Isn't that, effectively what Colonel Fitzwilliam says to Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, warning her off, by saying that men like him can only marry if they marry a woman wealthy enough to keep them in the style they accustomed to.

I do not think Prince Andrew is knowingly a pervert or sex offender, but he is stupid and a man who goes to parties where he knows the young women present are there to provide sex on demand - and how many hundreds of thousands of men in this country, alone, rich or poor are exploiting women that way? - I doubt it ever occurred him to wonder how old these young women were. They were at the party, earned their keep and were gone in the morning. I doubt if the mornng after he could even remember their names.