By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Latest reports and findings show that he sent on what you would assume to be fairly sensitive reports from his various trips as envoy within minutes of receiving them.
Surely this ultimately ends up with him behind bars now? If it doesn't then I would question if the monarchy can survive.
Soliciting brass is one thing but sending government "secrets" is surely another?
4
Andrew emails as Envoy to Epstein on 16:34 - Feb 9 with 624 views
Andrew emails as Envoy to Epstein on 10:04 - Feb 9 by DarkBrandon
If a member of my close family required my support (eg a sibling) they’d have it.
I don’t always agree with what they do or say … and in this case Andrew has done some terrible things. But I’d stand with my close family members, while making clear to them what I thought.
I think your comment on “what sort of family they are” is pretty harsh. They might well be a loving and supportive family.
Blimey, not everyday you see someone saying they'd stand by someone who shags kids.
0
Andrew emails as Envoy to Epstein on 16:37 - Feb 9 with 607 views
"three important factors distinguish monarchies such as the United Kingdom from systems where greater power might otherwise rest with Parliament"
Are loads more than those three factors that empower the UK head of state vs most other democracies. There's King's Consent, which is effectively a royal veto over laws they don't like (that Charles deems "affect the monarchy"). Charles can shape or block laws from ever reaching the parliament. We never find out which, because there's almost zero accountability of the monarchy. Freedom Of Information doesn't apply to our head of state like it does all other parts of govt. There's no moratorium period (eg 30 years) after which we plebs are allowed to see an audit-trail of eg when Kings Consent has been used, what lobbying Charles has done during his one hour meetings with our elected PM every week, privy council discussions, why gongs are handed-out such as to Paula Vennells (the CoE vicar after she persecuted innocent postmasters), etc, etc.
Monarchy is exempt from all taxes, so Charles recently inherited over a billion from his mum tax free. His property company (in all but name), the Duchy of Lancaster, pays zero Corporation Tax, so is given an unfair competitive advantage.
There are eleven taxpayer-funded royals. Next most in any constitutional monarchy is four in Norway. Unclear why. The latest estimates say the Monarchy costs the taxpayer ~£500m PA, which includes indirect costs such as failure to open the royal palaces to tourism.
There's a media stitch-up named the "Royal Rota" system where the monarchy PR dept chooses which reporters/broadcasters gain access. That combined with their demand for editing control on interviews means there's mostly fawning coverage. Their shaping of coverage has gone as far as trying to publish fake photos in 2024, which were rejected by reputable press outlets.
If you want to know more, there's an excellent expose by a former cabinet minister: https://www.amazon.co.uk/What- Highly recommend. Insightful, entertaining, and comprehensive.
The key question for me is what did the rest of the royal family know about Andrew's lifestyle and who he was meeting / abusing? Epstein was invited to their favourite residence, Balmoral: in 1999. How often and until when was he in their social circle? Did Andrew's security detail really not know who he was meeting? Presumably they accompanied him to Maxwell's house when he was photographed with Virginia Giuffre. Royal security (Royalty and Specialist Protection) is part of the Met, who've so far refused to investigate Andrew for sex-trafficking / rape. I wonder why.
[Post edited 10 Feb 23:22]
0
Andrew emails as Envoy to Epstein on 09:47 - Feb 10 with 323 views
Other thing that strikes me about the whole Epstein affair is it wouldn't come out today. Most messages to and from Epstein are from the 00's decade, a time when email and Blackberries were the medium of choice. Email leaves an audit trail. Today everyone would be on end-to-end encrypted chat like telegram or signal. Unlike email, such chat messages can't be intercepted. Chats would almost certainly be on phones-only, not laptops with much bigger storage and hence retention. When chat messages are gone from the recipient and sender's phones, then they no longer exist. Eg we only found out about Hesgeth's unlawful discussion on Signal of an upcoming Yemen military strike because he's so dumb he copied a journalist.
0
Andrew emails as Envoy to Epstein on 22:00 - Feb 10 with 242 views
Andrew emails as Envoy to Epstein on 09:47 - Feb 10 by grow_our_own
Other thing that strikes me about the whole Epstein affair is it wouldn't come out today. Most messages to and from Epstein are from the 00's decade, a time when email and Blackberries were the medium of choice. Email leaves an audit trail. Today everyone would be on end-to-end encrypted chat like telegram or signal. Unlike email, such chat messages can't be intercepted. Chats would almost certainly be on phones-only, not laptops with much bigger storage and hence retention. When chat messages are gone from the recipient and sender's phones, then they no longer exist. Eg we only found out about Hesgeth's unlawful discussion on Signal of an upcoming Yemen military strike because he's so dumb he copied a journalist.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
