The Queen v Citizen Andrew

[Darran]

:lol:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/13/veterans-ask-queen-to-strip-prince-andrew-of-honorary-military-titles

 

[Glyn1]

"Citizen Andrew"? Nah, he's still "Sir Andrew" and still "the Duke of York". And apparently some knights are more important than others (huh?) and he's still in the top tier.

Meghan was right to get Harry out of that cesspit.

 

[Swanjaxs]

"Citizen Andrew"? Nah, he's still "Sir Andrew" and still "the Duke of York". And apparently some knights are more important than others (huh?) and he's still in the top tier.

Meghan was right to get Harry out of that cesspit.

Jimmy Savile was Sir Jimmy until he was outed as a paedophile remember, let's wait and see what randy Andy's day in court drags up...

 

[Darran]

It’s interesting that this has happened mind,you know I don’t think for one minute the horrible scrounging prick is innocent but he could be found innocent and whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I remember saying a few years ago on here that it was interesting that the Queen had taken down the the portrait that Rolf Harris had painted of her from Buck House even before he’d appeared in court.

 

[MrSwerve]

It’s interesting that this has happened mind,you know I don’t think for one minute the horrible scrounging prick is innocent but he could be found innocent and whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I remember saying a few years ago on here that it was interesting that the Queen had taken down the the portrait that Rolf Harris had painted of her from Buck House even before he’d appeared in court.

I was thinking much the same. I can't stand him and I'm fairly sure that he's done something wrong, but how can you strip someone of something if they have just been 'accused' of something? Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? (Unless they know something that we don't...)

A bit like the whole Kevin Johns thing. It's not fair really.

 

[K23]

It’s interesting that this has happened mind,you know I don’t think for one minute the horrible scrounging prick is innocent but he could be found innocent and whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I remember saying a few years ago on here that it was interesting that the Queen had taken down the the portrait that Rolf Harris had painted of her from Buck House even before he’d appeared in court.

I was thinking much the same. I can't stand him and I'm fairly sure that he's done something wrong, but how can you strip someone of something if they have just been 'accused' of something? Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? (Unless they know something that we don't...)

A bit like the whole Kevin Johns thing. It's not fair really.

This ^ pretty much sums up my thoughts too. She obviously thinks the media furore taints the whole royal family image and wants to be seen to be taking it seriously. If he's found not guilty, will she give him his titles back? At its most basic level, it sounds like a mum taking a favourite toy away from a miscreant child then giving it back when she thinks he/she has learned their lesson :lol:

 

[monmouth]

The gravy train must go on. Nothing to do with innocent or guilty. The potential nonce has been discarded, as the negative PR would taint the Brand and the Firm. ‘Discovery’ is going to be very uncomfortable for him. He’s not coming back, as he’s tainted and they don’t want that.