Alleged Chinese spy with links to Prince Andrew banned from the UK

Quote sodapop Mon 16-Dec-24 17:58:25
There are other churches he could go to Anniebach he doesn't have to worship in the public eye.

Why should he attend another Church ? .

If a spy (which I doubt) has got close to anyone in the royal family then that is the fault of our security services.

The idiot prince didn't accidently make friends with a Chinese businessman. It was no doubt someone in government or the civil service who would have introduced them and briefed the Prince.

The Duke is being the fall guy for this.

China is very much a trading partner with the UK and we do a lot of business with them.

Stick Andrew and his ex wife in a remote cottage on the Balmoral Estate.

So that’s his Christmas cancelled too.
I like Matt’s take on it!

I've just read that he and Sarah Ferguson are allegedly now not even going to Sandringham. They're going to stay holed up in Royal Lodge

That’s scuppered Charles’ plan to get the locks changed then!

Send them to live in the States with H and M. I am sure they would all get on ‘famously’.

I expect wherever he is, neither he nor Sarah will be peeling sprouts or basting the turkey.

🦃

Gummie
You doubt that a spy could get close to a member of the royal family.
That one sentence demonstrates your ignorance.
Anthony Blunt was the surveyor of the Queens picture collection.
At the same time he was spying for Russia.

Have you not read the text sent by Andrew’s aid to the Chinese spy? If not, here it is.
under your guidance we found a way to get the relevant people unnoticed in and out of Windsor
Would you agree that that is not your everyday knowledge of a Chinese businessman taking into consideration all the security at Windsor.

Every time I hear the name Yang Tengbo I think of the Ying Tong Song.

Probably not allowed to say that these days but I’m showing my age.

He will be pulling a cracker with ex-wife Sarah and thinking how unfairly he's been treated. Can't stand either of them.

Allira

He who is without sin!

AI's grammar is not very good.

If we are being analytical (heaven forbid!) about the sentence, I think "him" is correct as it is the object of the main verb "let" here - "Let him" . . . who is without sin cast the first stone

Instead of "Let", it could say "Allow him ( . . . ) to cast the first stone" where "Allow he" would definitely sound wrong.

The "who is without sin" is a subsidiary clause enlarging on which him is meant, (or however all these parts of the sentence are now called under the new nomenclature.) It can be removed without damaging the main clause. That is how I would understand it.

I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m very pleased that the spy has lost his appeal and will hopefully be deported now.
With regard to Prince Andrew, I don’t think he need to not attend Sandringham at Christmas, it’s a family tradition to go there. Maybe he shouldn’t have attended church which is in the public eye, but it seems he’s not attending at all.
Thank goodness the. Queen is no longer able to see this latest debacle involving Andrew.

If he did join his family for Christmas he should join then
walking to Church

Well I don’t have a problem with that Annie but I’m thinking of the tongue wagging which go on if he did go to church.
Sandringham is really a family occasion and it should be up to the family how they celebrate Christmas there.

I agree petal , it’s for him and his family to decide not the
public

Elegran

Allira

He who is without sin!

AI's grammar is not very good.

If we are being analytical (heaven forbid!) about the sentence, I think "him" is correct as it is the object of the main verb "let" here - "Let him" . . . who is without sin cast the first stone

Instead of "Let", it could say "Allow him ( . . . ) to cast the first stone" where "Allow he" would definitely sound wrong.

The "who is without sin" is a subsidiary clause enlarging on which him is meant, (or however all these parts of the sentence are now called under the new nomenclature.) It can be removed without damaging the main clause. That is how I would understand it.

You're right!!

Forgot the rules 😂 - remove the subsidiary clause to test the grammar.

Let him .... cast the first stone