| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 17:00 - Feb 19 with 944 views | Mullet |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:43 - Feb 19 by bluelagos |
Nope. But the public shaming of a successful prosecution would really hurt him.
Can't see him getting done for the rape of VG though. |
I don’t think he has any shame. He’s not bothered to do the right thing ever in his life.
I wonder how much more of our money will be wasted on appeals and legal obstruction etc just to ensure it casts more doubt over any conviction etc.
After it emerged that Saville had a decades long relationship with Charles as some sort of confidant, there can be no more benefit of the doubt for these lot. Clearly, they are either unlucky on happy to turn a blind eye to people like this. |  |
|  |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 17:09 - Feb 19 with 923 views | Zx1988 |
It feels as if a line may have been crossed today, with regards to what the press do and don't feel emboldened to run with:
I don't think any of the allegations stemming from anonymous tips to the FBI had been given any official air-time prior to today? |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 17:11 - Feb 19 with 912 views | Mullet |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 17:09 - Feb 19 by Zx1988 |
It feels as if a line may have been crossed today, with regards to what the press do and don't feel emboldened to run with:
I don't think any of the allegations stemming from anonymous tips to the FBI had been given any official air-time prior to today? |
There’s also been stuff going around about Trump being not a client but part of the “business model” using his beauty pageants to access and traffic girls.
If there is any truth to that then it’s going to explode on both sides of the globe as people involved scramble to save themselves. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 17:54 - Feb 19 with 848 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:30 - Feb 19 by Zx1988 |
The quotes from the Crown in the Grauniad article are farcical as well.
If you believe The Crown, the Monarch will only ever refuse consent on the advice of Government ministers.
Which leads to the perverse situation where a Government minister would be involved with the conception of an item of legislation, and then tell the Monarch that they should refuse to allow it.
Chinny reckon. |
Its a convention.
There is no serious doubt among anyone who knows about the law, that the power is symbolic. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:01 - Feb 19 with 838 views | Zx1988 |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 17:54 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
Its a convention.
There is no serious doubt among anyone who knows about the law, that the power is symbolic. |
It's not, though.
As per the Guardian article, the Crown used its powers to have animal cruelty legislation amended in order to exempt Crown properties from inspections.
That's not convention, it's direct interference in the law-making process. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:06 - Feb 19 with 817 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:01 - Feb 19 by Zx1988 |
It's not, though.
As per the Guardian article, the Crown used its powers to have animal cruelty legislation amended in order to exempt Crown properties from inspections.
That's not convention, it's direct interference in the law-making process. |
And yet, if push comes to shove, no one serious who knows about UK law doubts that parliament would be sovereign and has the ability to force things through. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:09 - Feb 19 with 805 views | Zx1988 |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:06 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
And yet, if push comes to shove, no one serious who knows about UK law doubts that parliament would be sovereign and has the ability to force things through. |
You reckon so?
Forcing the Royals to pay income tax, inheritance tax, and all the other bits and bobs that us commoners have to pay would be a surefire vote winner.
If Parliament can force through whatever it wants, regardless of Royal opinion, why has no government ever tried this?
Exemptions from equality laws, FOI, and all sorts of other public-spirited legislation would also come under this heading, I'd suggest. [Post edited 19 Feb 18:11]
| |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:41 - Feb 19 with 744 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:06 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
And yet, if push comes to shove, no one serious who knows about UK law doubts that parliament would be sovereign and has the ability to force things through. |
Citation? Again, I think you're confusing Assent (rubber stamp) with Consent, which is very much NOT a rubber stamp. Here's another example: https://www.theguardian.com/uk
this time Consent was used to "alter proposed legislation to prevent her [the Queen's] shareholdings from being disclosed". | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:52 - Feb 19 with 718 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:09 - Feb 19 by Zx1988 |
You reckon so?
Forcing the Royals to pay income tax, inheritance tax, and all the other bits and bobs that us commoners have to pay would be a surefire vote winner.
If Parliament can force through whatever it wants, regardless of Royal opinion, why has no government ever tried this?
Exemptions from equality laws, FOI, and all sorts of other public-spirited legislation would also come under this heading, I'd suggest. [Post edited 19 Feb 18:11]
|
I don't 'reckon' so. I am well informed and entirely confident in it. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:56 - Feb 19 with 705 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:41 - Feb 19 by grow_our_own |
Citation? Again, I think you're confusing Assent (rubber stamp) with Consent, which is very much NOT a rubber stamp. Here's another example: https://www.theguardian.com/uk
this time Consent was used to "alter proposed legislation to prevent her [the Queen's] shareholdings from being disclosed". |
Right- firstly, what you are referring to refers very narrowly to things which directly affect the royals, rather than any wider impact on lawmaking. Secondly, it is a convention which the houses agreed to observe. The will of ministers would previal in the unlikely event that such a will was determinedly formed. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:59 - Feb 19 with 699 views | Zx1988 |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:52 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
I don't 'reckon' so. I am well informed and entirely confident in it. |
Okay then, back it up with some evidence.
I'd also be interested to know where and when you studied Constitutional and Administrative Law. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 19:03 - Feb 19 with 690 views | Zx1988 |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:56 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
Right- firstly, what you are referring to refers very narrowly to things which directly affect the royals, rather than any wider impact on lawmaking. Secondly, it is a convention which the houses agreed to observe. The will of ministers would previal in the unlikely event that such a will was determinedly formed. |
The Guardian article shows that it's anything but narrow. The Crown has been consulted on everything from salmon, to the British Museum, to clamping.
I think you're being naïve in the extreme to suggest that Government either can, or would dare, override a refusal to grant Royal Consent. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 19:22 - Feb 19 with 666 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 19:03 - Feb 19 by Zx1988 |
The Guardian article shows that it's anything but narrow. The Crown has been consulted on everything from salmon, to the British Museum, to clamping.
I think you're being naïve in the extreme to suggest that Government either can, or would dare, override a refusal to grant Royal Consent. |
They certainly could. legally. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 21:25 - Feb 19 with 617 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:56 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
Right- firstly, what you are referring to refers very narrowly to things which directly affect the royals, rather than any wider impact on lawmaking. Secondly, it is a convention which the houses agreed to observe. The will of ministers would previal in the unlikely event that such a will was determinedly formed. |
"rather than any wider impact on lawmaking" - the queen gained a carve-out from proposals to increase company ownership transparency (ie shareholdings). Don't you think it's important to know the significant shareholdings of those in senior public positions to ward against conflicts of interest and corruption? Of course there was an impact.
"[The Queen's lawyer] relayed the Queen’s objection that the law would reveal her private investments in listed companies" - https://www.theguardian.com/uk
The ministers' bill did not "prevail" intact in this "unlikely event", it was kicked into the long grass and ran out of parliamentary time. [Post edited 19 Feb 22:20]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 21:26 - Feb 19 with 613 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 18:59 - Feb 19 by Zx1988 |
Okay then, back it up with some evidence.
I'd also be interested to know where and when you studied Constitutional and Administrative Law. |
King's consent (or Queen's consent as was) is a pretty arcane topic, and the vast majority of legislative provisions don't require it.
Here is a good explanation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/
And the following link sets out the following.
https://publications.parliamen
"The Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Andrew Lansley MP, told us in written evidence: "the process of Queen's and Prince's consent is subject to the convention that the Sovereign must ultimately accept Ministerial advice." He also commented: "A request for consent carries with it by implication Ministerial advice that consent should be granted. It seems also that the advice is thus not actual written advice; there is simply a presumption that when Consent is sought by Ministers, it will be granted by the Queen or the Prince of Wales."
Of course, this is not to say that the former Prince Charles has not sought to influence legislation: there was a time when it emerged he wrote letters to ministers. But I am not sure that the Queen would ever have done so.
And on occasions maybe ministers would have taken on board what he said. But if that were the case, it is not dissimilar to other people (eg. MPs, the Lords) or organisations (eg. the NFU) who seek to do the same and sometimes succeed.
But at the end of the day, ministers have the final say when it comes to King's or Prince's Consent. [Post edited 20 Feb 7:47]
|  | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 21:54 - Feb 19 with 579 views | WeWereZombies |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 21:26 - Feb 19 by DJR |
King's consent (or Queen's consent as was) is a pretty arcane topic, and the vast majority of legislative provisions don't require it.
Here is a good explanation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/
And the following link sets out the following.
https://publications.parliamen
"The Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Andrew Lansley MP, told us in written evidence: "the process of Queen's and Prince's consent is subject to the convention that the Sovereign must ultimately accept Ministerial advice." He also commented: "A request for consent carries with it by implication Ministerial advice that consent should be granted. It seems also that the advice is thus not actual written advice; there is simply a presumption that when Consent is sought by Ministers, it will be granted by the Queen or the Prince of Wales."
Of course, this is not to say that the former Prince Charles has not sought to influence legislation: there was a time when it emerged he wrote letters to ministers. But I am not sure that the Queen would ever have done so.
And on occasions maybe ministers would have taken on board what he said. But if that were the case, it is not dissimilar to other people (eg. MPs, the Lords) or organisations (eg. the NFU) who seek to do the same and sometimes succeed.
But at the end of the day, ministers have the final say when it comes to King's or Prince's Consent. [Post edited 20 Feb 7:47]
|
In addition to your exhaustive as can be expected explanation, and nevertheless taking into account any bias that he has, I think this view is pertinent:
'Key aspects of Peter Hennessy's view on Queen Elizabeth II include:
The "Good Chap" Theory: Hennessy often discussed the "good chap theory of government," which posits that the British constitution relies on honorable people in power, with the Queen as the ultimate, reliable "good chap".
A Pillar of Stability: He regarded her as a vital, stabilizing force, often portraying her long reign as a model of duty, service, and, at times, a bulwark against political volatility.
"The Queen's Longest Reign": In his 2015 work, The Queen's Longest Reign: Elizabeth & Victoria, Hennessy compared her to Queen Victoria, analyzing the endurance and evolution of the monarchy under her guidance.
Respect for Constitutional Restraint: Hennessy has praised the Queen for her understanding of the limitations of her role and her "discretion," rarely letting her personal opinions interfere with her duty as a constitutional monarch.
Concern for Post-Elizabethan Era: While deeply admiring the Queen, Hennessy has expressed worries about whether the same level of respect for constitutional conventions and, in his view, the "good chap" approach, would continue after her reign.
Prospect Magazine
Hennessy is a Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary University of London and a member of the House of Lords Constitution Committee.' |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 22:11 - Feb 19 with 563 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 21:26 - Feb 19 by DJR |
King's consent (or Queen's consent as was) is a pretty arcane topic, and the vast majority of legislative provisions don't require it.
Here is a good explanation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/
And the following link sets out the following.
https://publications.parliamen
"The Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Andrew Lansley MP, told us in written evidence: "the process of Queen's and Prince's consent is subject to the convention that the Sovereign must ultimately accept Ministerial advice." He also commented: "A request for consent carries with it by implication Ministerial advice that consent should be granted. It seems also that the advice is thus not actual written advice; there is simply a presumption that when Consent is sought by Ministers, it will be granted by the Queen or the Prince of Wales."
Of course, this is not to say that the former Prince Charles has not sought to influence legislation: there was a time when it emerged he wrote letters to ministers. But I am not sure that the Queen would ever have done so.
And on occasions maybe ministers would have taken on board what he said. But if that were the case, it is not dissimilar to other people (eg. MPs, the Lords) or organisations (eg. the NFU) who seek to do the same and sometimes succeed.
But at the end of the day, ministers have the final say when it comes to King's or Prince's Consent. [Post edited 20 Feb 7:47]
|
You mean Lord Lansley OBE said that? Tory and bastion of equality of opportunity having attended a private boarding school? That Andrew Lansley?
"Sovereign must ultimately accept Ministerial advice". If it's named Consent, laws are quietly abandoned after failing to receive Consent ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk ), the monarchy somehow ends up exempt from all taxation as if they've denied their Consent or qualified it, then it's a duck.
I'm sure you're right that in most circumstances Consent is a formality (rubber stamp). But unlike all other public bodies, there's no enforced audit-trail of the monarch's Consent. When Consent is sought in the confidential drafting stage, no public record is made. If Consent is denied, it's like the bill never existed. Poof! Abracadabra! We don't know if "must accept Ministerial advice" is actually observed in practice. Because there's no observation. [Post edited 19 Feb 22:15]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 22:47 - Feb 19 with 521 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 21:26 - Feb 19 by DJR |
King's consent (or Queen's consent as was) is a pretty arcane topic, and the vast majority of legislative provisions don't require it.
Here is a good explanation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/
And the following link sets out the following.
https://publications.parliamen
"The Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Andrew Lansley MP, told us in written evidence: "the process of Queen's and Prince's consent is subject to the convention that the Sovereign must ultimately accept Ministerial advice." He also commented: "A request for consent carries with it by implication Ministerial advice that consent should be granted. It seems also that the advice is thus not actual written advice; there is simply a presumption that when Consent is sought by Ministers, it will be granted by the Queen or the Prince of Wales."
Of course, this is not to say that the former Prince Charles has not sought to influence legislation: there was a time when it emerged he wrote letters to ministers. But I am not sure that the Queen would ever have done so.
And on occasions maybe ministers would have taken on board what he said. But if that were the case, it is not dissimilar to other people (eg. MPs, the Lords) or organisations (eg. the NFU) who seek to do the same and sometimes succeed.
But at the end of the day, ministers have the final say when it comes to King's or Prince's Consent. [Post edited 20 Feb 7:47]
|
Thank F for the sanity of another lawyer! | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 08:01 - Feb 20 with 421 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 22:11 - Feb 19 by grow_our_own |
You mean Lord Lansley OBE said that? Tory and bastion of equality of opportunity having attended a private boarding school? That Andrew Lansley?
"Sovereign must ultimately accept Ministerial advice". If it's named Consent, laws are quietly abandoned after failing to receive Consent ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk ), the monarchy somehow ends up exempt from all taxation as if they've denied their Consent or qualified it, then it's a duck.
I'm sure you're right that in most circumstances Consent is a formality (rubber stamp). But unlike all other public bodies, there's no enforced audit-trail of the monarch's Consent. When Consent is sought in the confidential drafting stage, no public record is made. If Consent is denied, it's like the bill never existed. Poof! Abracadabra! We don't know if "must accept Ministerial advice" is actually observed in practice. Because there's no observation. [Post edited 19 Feb 22:15]
|
A few observations.
1. It was written advice from Lansley which would have been drafted by civil servants with knowledge.
2. Much more is being made of this issue than it warrants given that King's Consent applies to very little legislation, and what it applies to tends to be rather insignificant in the scheme of things.
3. The Queen can lobby all she wants if it affects her interests but the government doesn't have to accept what she says.
4. Lobbying and lobbyists more generally are a far bigger problem than the monarch.
5. I worked in the office where legislation is drafted for 24 years and am not aware of any Bill being shelved.
6. If the mood changed (as it is starting to do), and it was decided to abolish the monarchy, Parliament would be able to do this because it is sovereign, and the King would have to lump it. | | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 08:11 - Feb 20 with 414 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 21:54 - Feb 19 by WeWereZombies |
In addition to your exhaustive as can be expected explanation, and nevertheless taking into account any bias that he has, I think this view is pertinent:
'Key aspects of Peter Hennessy's view on Queen Elizabeth II include:
The "Good Chap" Theory: Hennessy often discussed the "good chap theory of government," which posits that the British constitution relies on honorable people in power, with the Queen as the ultimate, reliable "good chap".
A Pillar of Stability: He regarded her as a vital, stabilizing force, often portraying her long reign as a model of duty, service, and, at times, a bulwark against political volatility.
"The Queen's Longest Reign": In his 2015 work, The Queen's Longest Reign: Elizabeth & Victoria, Hennessy compared her to Queen Victoria, analyzing the endurance and evolution of the monarchy under her guidance.
Respect for Constitutional Restraint: Hennessy has praised the Queen for her understanding of the limitations of her role and her "discretion," rarely letting her personal opinions interfere with her duty as a constitutional monarch.
Concern for Post-Elizabethan Era: While deeply admiring the Queen, Hennessy has expressed worries about whether the same level of respect for constitutional conventions and, in his view, the "good chap" approach, would continue after her reign.
Prospect Magazine
Hennessy is a Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary University of London and a member of the House of Lords Constitution Committee.' |
I know Peter Hennessy well, although not personally, and what you post is interesting.
Whilst they don't have the longevity or affection of the Queen, I am inclined to think that both the King and Prince William are "good chaps"
But even under the Queen it could be said that "the good chap theory of government" came under threat when Johnson (not a good chap) sought to prorogue Parliament.
In that case, the courts came to the rescue, but it does seem to me that the good chap theory of government could come under threat if Reform come to power because with policies such a leaving the ECHR, I think they will push things as far as they can when it comes to legal and other norms. [Post edited 20 Feb 8:12]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 09:23 - Feb 20 with 380 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 08:01 - Feb 20 by DJR |
A few observations.
1. It was written advice from Lansley which would have been drafted by civil servants with knowledge.
2. Much more is being made of this issue than it warrants given that King's Consent applies to very little legislation, and what it applies to tends to be rather insignificant in the scheme of things.
3. The Queen can lobby all she wants if it affects her interests but the government doesn't have to accept what she says.
4. Lobbying and lobbyists more generally are a far bigger problem than the monarch.
5. I worked in the office where legislation is drafted for 24 years and am not aware of any Bill being shelved.
6. If the mood changed (as it is starting to do), and it was decided to abolish the monarchy, Parliament would be able to do this because it is sovereign, and the King would have to lump it. |
"Consent applies to very little legislation" - https://www.gov.uk/government/
Over 12,000 words listing the legislation it applies to is not "very little". Plus ministers must "err on the side of caution". Norman Baker, a former govt minister, wrote a book on this subject ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/What- ), and says it was sought 146 times between 1970 and 2013. That's four times a year. It'll probably be used between last and next month. Not just Charles Consents, William does too for anything that might possibly "affect" his property company (Duchy of Cornwall).
"rather insignificant" - carve outs denying transparency of the monarch's conflicts of interest ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk ) when they meet with and / or lobby the PM is significant. Animal welfare proponents will say the Queen obtaining exemption from protections in 2006 is not "insignificant".
"am not aware of any Bill being shelved" - would you know if they were? Difficult to verify without knowing the name of the office you were in. If Consent is denied at confidential drafting stage, very few would know beyond those drafting it in the relevant department I'm reading.
"Parliament would be able to abolish the monarchy" - in practice, it'd probably need govt support. Private members bills can be and are shut-down by withholding Consent. Eg here's Consent being denied for the removal of monarch's immunity from prosecution:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/ [Post edited 20 Feb 9:45]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 10:54 - Feb 20 with 313 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 09:23 - Feb 20 by grow_our_own |
"Consent applies to very little legislation" - https://www.gov.uk/government/
Over 12,000 words listing the legislation it applies to is not "very little". Plus ministers must "err on the side of caution". Norman Baker, a former govt minister, wrote a book on this subject ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/What- ), and says it was sought 146 times between 1970 and 2013. That's four times a year. It'll probably be used between last and next month. Not just Charles Consents, William does too for anything that might possibly "affect" his property company (Duchy of Cornwall).
"rather insignificant" - carve outs denying transparency of the monarch's conflicts of interest ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk ) when they meet with and / or lobby the PM is significant. Animal welfare proponents will say the Queen obtaining exemption from protections in 2006 is not "insignificant".
"am not aware of any Bill being shelved" - would you know if they were? Difficult to verify without knowing the name of the office you were in. If Consent is denied at confidential drafting stage, very few would know beyond those drafting it in the relevant department I'm reading.
"Parliament would be able to abolish the monarchy" - in practice, it'd probably need govt support. Private members bills can be and are shut-down by withholding Consent. Eg here's Consent being denied for the removal of monarch's immunity from prosecution:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/ [Post edited 20 Feb 9:45]
|
I think it is very easy to get rather paranoid about this sort of thing if one doesn't support the monarchy (and I am one of those who don't).
It was calculated by the Office of Tax Simplification in 2012 that tax legislation ran to some 6,102 pages. It will no doubt have grown a lot since then, and if one is looking at overall legislation it must run well into to the many hundreds of thousands.
As regards the office I worked for it was the Parliamentary Counsel Office who drafted the first document you link.
Finally, of course Parliament couldn't abolish the monarchy without government support, but with government support it could even it if might be a bit of a battle, and use of the Parliament Act might be necessary to force it through. [Post edited 20 Feb 11:05]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 11:32 - Feb 20 with 272 views | Radlett_blue |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 10:54 - Feb 20 by DJR |
I think it is very easy to get rather paranoid about this sort of thing if one doesn't support the monarchy (and I am one of those who don't).
It was calculated by the Office of Tax Simplification in 2012 that tax legislation ran to some 6,102 pages. It will no doubt have grown a lot since then, and if one is looking at overall legislation it must run well into to the many hundreds of thousands.
As regards the office I worked for it was the Parliamentary Counsel Office who drafted the first document you link.
Finally, of course Parliament couldn't abolish the monarchy without government support, but with government support it could even it if might be a bit of a battle, and use of the Parliament Act might be necessary to force it through. [Post edited 20 Feb 11:05]
|
Oliver Cromwell managed it, although the trial of Charles I was of dubious legality. No endless appeals in those days, though! |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 11:52 - Feb 20 with 240 views | OldFart71 |
If the reports are true perhaps they should rename it F#ckingem Palace. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
