Prince Andrew

Virginia's televised interview this coming Monday should be interesting. I think Andrew needs to take the fuses out of all the tvs at Buck House so his mother doesn't see it!

The article in Spiked contains this sentence:

"Only a court of law can rule on whether Andrew is innocent or guilty, but given the tsunami of media coverage you would have thought that one or two of the journalists assigned to this story might have been asked to investigate whether Andrew’s alibi was true." [Given that Andrew is a member of the royal family, I'm not sure whether a journalist would have the authority to demand the disclosure of security logs and other information that may throw a light on Andrew's whereabouts at crucial times - surely that is the job of the police? And a journalist would not have the authority to interview under caution uncooperative possible key witnesses.]

My understanding is that the US authorities wish to interview Andrew because a woman has made serious allegations about him and because he may have vital information about an alleged illegal sex trafficking network directed by Epstein. If the same allegations were being made in this country, the police would be expected to interview him . Taking his, and other witness statements into account, plus any further evidence that the police possess, a decision would then be made as to whether there was enough evidence to charge him of any criminal offence. In any event, given that he appeared to be a great pal of Epstein, he could give them information as to his friends and contacts.

The point is, unless he submits himself to questioning, he can't be either charged or cleared of an offence, so saying it's unfair because people are condemning him without a trial, is, in my view, a misrepresentation. Andrew chose to be interviewed for TV at his home in this country, rather than go to the US and cooperate with the authorities there.

Interesting article here from Spiked.

www.spiked-online.com/2019/11/25/prince-andrew-this-has-become-a-witch-hunt/

Oh yes, isn't the POTUS attending that?

Meghan had a lucky escape

Reception at Buck House 3rd Dec to mark the 70th Anniversary of NATO,

Heads of State will be greeted by - The Queen, Charles and
Camilla, Kate, Anne, Edward and Sophie

William is on a royal tour of Kuwait, Harry and Megan recuperating for 6 weeks after their exhausting year.

That's good, merlotgran

I think the RN can still go to sea for up to nine months now though.

Yes. Thank goodness they've reduced it, Callistemon

DSiL has just returned from a four month deployment in the middle east. It was only cut short for him because he's been sent to military HQ at Northwood.

Happy days for us because they've decided to move into quarters so for the next two and a half years they'll only be two hours away.

Although being made an Admiral for no other reason than being royal may have added to his sense of superiority.

I have met a few Admirals and only one who was pompous - he came from a much more lowly background of which he may have been conscious.

did his role in the Forces contribute to his mindset

I think I can say categorically - No.

And since when were people convicted on what went on behind closed doors grapefruitpip?

It used to be twelve months, merlotgran
And 2 and three quarter years for an overseas commission years ago.

It doesn't turn people into sinners either, gfp

My DH was absent after we were married too.
It's what happens with the Armed Forces!

Fergie annoyed a lot of Naval wives by saying that servicemen were allowed leave when their wives had a baby and were sent home for the birth.
Hollow laughs! Only Prince Andrew!
She is as dumb as him.

The armed forces is a job, a career choice. It does not turn people into saints.

Pantglas......really??? Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors.

OMG, pick pick pick. Why do some of you feel the need to do it? I was just making a very general point.

Four to six months for deployment.

Not at all strange, he was in the Navy, members of the armed forces do marry and leave their wives st home when they return to duty

Regarding your post, grapefruitpip, it could apply to all three of the Queens sons but only one has turned out dodgy.

Nobody knows do they, what lead him to make such terrible choices. A combination of power, wealth, good looks,charm and being surrounded by yes men I suppose.

Did his role in the armed forces contribute to his mindset? Its all a bit strange, the way he was allegedly madly in love with Fergie, then more or less absent after they married.

trisher's post listed the stages which she believed led to Andrew's present problems, ie his friendship with a convicted paedophile who trafficked chi,dren.
One of those stages was serving in "^the Army^ (sic)

There is no getting away from that statement, no excuses for it.

Not at all acceptable I agree Eloethan

But they were not children.

My apologies, I should have referenced trisher's post re Andrew and the Royal Navy, not *sooziewoozie".

In 2005 the Telegraph reported:

People have chosen to take sooziewoozie's comments as a slur on every man who has ever served in the armed forces, which is obviously ridiculous and I don't think it was what she intended. She is entitled to her opinion without it being demanded that she apologise. There is some validity, I think, in what she says:

Telegraph 2005

Quarter of Navy women 'sexually harassed'

"Sexual harassment in the Armed Forces has reached unacceptable levels, [*what is an acceptable level*?] the Ministry of Defence said yesterday, as statistics showed that nearly a quarter of women in the Royal Navy had complained about it...............

" "Sexual harassment is all too often dismissed as a bit of fun or harmless flirting," said Jenny Watson, the commission's acting chairman. "But it can range from indecent remarks, the circulating of obscene material and requests for sexual favours, to stalking, sexual assault and rape."

"The commission wrote to the ministry a year ago expressing concern about the frequency and persistence of sexual harassment of women. It later emerged that more than 2,390 servicewomen had made complaints in 2002, the latest year for which figures are available.

"In the Army, 12 per cent of women said they had been sexually harassed. Nearly half of all officers and a third of all soldiers were unhappy with the way their complaints had been handled.

"The figure for the RAF stands at nine per cent, with 40 per cent of women dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve their complaints..............

.........."Mr Reid [the then Defence Secretary] said that sexual harassment was "corrosive" and could undermine the operational effectiveness of the forces.

"He said he was aware that there was a discrepancy between the number of women who claimed harassment and those who made formal complaints. But that was because they feared that making complaints would affect their careers or the morale of the people they were working with.

"*The commission said .......... the figures were all the more significant because women made up only nine per cent of the personnel."[my emphasis]

Perhaps a very unwise combination - a male whose only experience of life is of people kow-towing to him and acceding to his every wish - coupled with entering , in later life, a heavily male-dominated institution that is behind the times in respect of its approach to sexism (and racism).

“Driving a boat”

PA was Helicopter pilot during the Falklands War, in the front line and would have been at risk just like any other serviceman. As for comments from other colleagues, that is normal, some you get on with, some you don’t.

That aside he’s still a fool for getting involved with Epstein

Ps boats are submarines in RN.