Government ‘considers’ removing Andrew from line of succession.

Is that the royal ‘we’ ronib? 😀

Well let’s tell the Audit Commission now is the time to revisit the figures…. petra

ronib

Where’s the Audit Commission in all of this? Couldn’t Andrew be made to refund unauthorised expenses back to the awarding body?

The Audit office were probably told to turn a blind eye, like everyone else where he was concerned.

When you say 'you' do you include GNs, His Majesty, our Government and the Australians?

Do I doubt that AMW will be found guilty of at least some of the things of which he stands unofficially accused?
No.

Do I want to abandon our right to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
No.

Do you want to dismiss that right for everybody or should we be able to pick and choose?

I think Mandelson will lose his title.

I think it took more than courage, to say 'no'. I think they would have been putting their careers on the line, and possibly then still ignored.

So, does someone in line for the throne have to have done something illegal to lose their place in the succession line?

Witzend

I can hardly believe I read that they’re ‘considering’ it. Yes, I know it will take an Act of Parliament, but to be ‘considering’ it - why don’t they just get on and DO it? How many MPs would actually vote against it?

I would also suggest removing Mandelsons lord ship. Can be done has been done. After all he is higher in the pecking order than Andrew, with regards to state security and secrets. Even JRM and Black Belt Barrister are wondering why he has not been arrested . Cover up methinks. How is he not getting villified, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Easier to go after Anrew.

Tuliptree

Hunros

Just what has Andrew been found guilty of?
When was the trial?
What was the verdict?
How long did it take to find an impartial jury?

Is this a serious question?

I find it a serious one.

Smileless2012

I'm not seeing any A apologists Tuliptree simply posters who believe in our legal system that means someone is innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, innocent until found guilty in a court of law, as opposed to trial by media and social media 👍

petra

Now that 2 civil servants have claimed they were forced to sign off Andrews expenses claims for Massage Services while serving 😂 as the uk trade envoy I wonder if many more will be brave enough 🤷‍♀️

Was there no-one who had the courage to just say NO to this man?

Can’t see the point. He won’t ever be king.

I'm not seeing any A apologists Tuliptree simply posters who believe in our legal system that means someone is innocent until proven guilty.

Where’s the Audit Commission in all of this? Couldn’t Andrew be made to refund unauthorised expenses back to the awarding body?

Now that 2 civil servants have claimed they were forced to sign off Andrews expenses claims for Massage Services while serving 😂 as the uk trade envoy I wonder if many more will be brave enough 🤷‍♀️

Maremia

No official trial yet, but he has been very publicly caught out in lies about his friendship with an actual convicted paedophile.

Strange how the A apologists seem to think lying on national TV doesn’t make you guilty of anything

As has his ex-wife

No official trial yet, but he has been very publicly caught out in lies about his friendship with an actual convicted paedophile.

nanna8

I suppose whilst the media go after him it deflects views from the Americans who were heavily involved. Though why the British press don’t see this, who knows ?

The British are more interested in investigating crimes committed by Brits who are subject to British laws and courts.

Because there's nothing we can do about the legal system in USA ( distorted by Donald Trump) or crimes committed by Americans outside UK jurisdiction.

Smileless2012

Great post *Labradora^.

I was beginning to wonder if there'd been a trial and I'd missed it too Hunros.

Who needs a trial when for some, the decision has already been made?

I do wonder whether those already knitting would be so keen to forego a trial if it was their possible crime on the front page.
But safe in the anonymity of GN, they don’t have to worry about that.

Witzend

I can hardly believe I read that they’re ‘considering’ it. Yes, I know it will take an Act of Parliament, but to be ‘considering’ it - why don’t they just get on and DO it? How many MPs would actually vote against it?

Because in UK, changes in Law follow a fixed procedure that passes through two Houses opf Parliament and MP's of a dozen different political parties representing four distinct countries.

It's not a one-stop shop.

What he is already guilty of as a senior royal is a long term friendship with someone who first was apprehended in 2006 and later was a convicted paedophile. A then went on national TV and lied. Both these things are enough on their own to banish him from the royal family. The further issues that have led to the arrest and then other issues under investigation are to be determined. But as things stand, he is guilty of not being fit to hold any rank or status in our society

Great post *Labradora^.

I was beginning to wonder if there'd been a trial and I'd missed it too Hunros.

Hunros

Just what has Andrew been found guilty of?
When was the trial?
What was the verdict?
How long did it take to find an impartial jury?

Is this a serious question?