The Royal Family

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you have to take the oath if you join the military?

I know you do even if you are a republican MP, which seems odd.
 
The armed forces swear an oath to the ruling monarch and their successors not to the government.

As for the stuff about Andrew being innocent until proven guilty that argument doesn't really fly with me, on this case since he refuses to answer any questions, used his royal status to avoid extradition to the US and took the decision to reach an out of court settlement with the accuser.
 
The armed forces swear an oath to the ruling monarch and their successors not to the government.
I know that, my question was do you have to ? like the MP's do.
 
I think the level of disrespect introduced to this thread yesterday evening is disgraceful and it is best the thread is dropped for the time being to prevent reoccurrence
 
You have to sing Scouse Tommy when you join the Army now, as an initiation.

".... ..... he was sent far away from his home, to fight for his King and his Country .... ....."
 
It isn't slander. He settled on the lawsuit which means it's entirely acceptable legally to say what I've said. So please stop the slander nonsense.

Being a moderator has no bearing on which way I vote or my opinions on the royals. Let's not be silly here.

As for taking an oath. If you want to protect and swear an oath to a protector of peadophiles. Fair enough. But it isn't for me.
So how is King Charles a protector of peadophiles.?
 
So how is King Charles a protector of peadophiles.?

He quite literally is. After refusing to pay for Harry's security the King himself funds Andrews security.

This after the royal fund paid for both his legal fees and the £12m settlement and used their privilege to stop him being extradited.
 
He quite literally is. After refusing to pay for Harry's security the King himself funds Andrews security.

This after the royal fund paid for both his legal fees and the £12m settlement and used their privilege to stop him being extradited.
Tell me when Andrew was convicted of being a peadophile ?
 
Tell me when Andrew was convicted of being a peadophile ?

Why do you think he paid a £12m settlement? Because he was innocent?

I'll give you a clue. Innocent people don't pay 8 figure settlement fees. If you want to bury your head in the sand and swear your allegiance to a person and family that does that. Fair enough. Don't expect everyone else to turn a blind eye to it.

Next you'll be telling me you believe his story about how he doesn't sweat. (Another clue there are various videos of him sweating)
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 

Thought it would've been higher actually, but could've been better spent on Osimhen and Kim Min-jae
 
Why do you think he paid a £12m settlement? Because he was innocent?

I'll give you a clue. Innocent people don't pay 8 figure settlement fees. If you want to bury your head in the sand and swear your allegiance to a person and family that does that. Fair enough. Don't expect everyone else to turn a blind eye to it.

Next you'll be telling me you believe his story about how he doesn't sweat. (Another clue there are various videos of him sweating)
A settlement doesn't imply guilt it simply means they didn't want to be dragged through the US court system as US justice is sooooo fair isnt it mannnnn. Guilty or not if people like you had been on the Jury he would be hung drawn and quartered comrade. I swore allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and her successors WTF has that to do with Andrew ??? Whether Andrew has transgressed or not you are shabbily tarnishing the whole Royal Family many who have added more to society than you and your clique will ever do The Queen served in the WRAC Prince Philip in WW2 Andrew fought in the Falklands Harry and William served in Afghanistan
 
For me, where guilt is not proven, there is little evidence, and certainly where accusers show they have more interest in profiteering than proving guilt, then the accused gets the benefit of the doubt for me.

A father Evan Chandler accuses Michael Jackson of molesting his son resulting in a £13m pay out. His son had refused to testify. Not happy with that he then 3 years later filed a £40m lawsuit claiming Jackson breached the confidentiality agreement by talking about the case.
Only 5 months after Michael Jackson's death Evan Chandler committed suicide. And likely went straight to hell.
 
I've no opinion on the royal family beyond the Queen.

But come on, "a certain royal" innocent until proven guilty. Do me a favour. Any other family he'd be in prison by now
Any other family he'd be in prison by now
Well how come Michael Jackson never went to prison?
Do me a favour.
And don't be saying that, you could get yourself into trouble!
 
People with more money than God rarely go to prison, you should know that.
It was stated, Any other family and he would be in prison by now.
Truth is these cases are effectively blackmail, a crime itself and in my opinion should be outlawed.
 
For me, where guilt is not proven, there is little evidence, and certainly where accusers show they have more interest in profiteering than proving guilt, then the accused gets the benefit of the doubt for me.
Little evidence? There are photos of him and the girl in question he claims never to have met together. There are videos of him and Epstein together. Talk about head in the sand ffs. His own daughter denies his alibi excuse. Saying she has no recollection.

As for the other nonsense post. I tarnish the entire family as it was them that protected him and them that paid the settlement.

As for them serving in Afghanistan, I've never been a massive advocate of war and killing more innocent people.
 
Have a look at that photo. She looks to me like someone who is positively glowing, and positively seeking association with the rich and famous. Not someone who is being abused. And then the blackmail started. She's an old slapper!
As far as I am concerned I will consider Andrew to have been guilty of naivety outside of definitive proof that he abused anybody.
You don't half talk a lot of shite! I suppose you have never bought a poppy either! (and why were you directing that at me? I made no such reference).

And I will again refer you back to the Mason Greenwood thread to highlight your total hypocrisy. It's there for all to see.
Always banging on with the "holier than thou" crap.
 
It was stated, Any other family and he would be in prison by now.
Truth is these cases are effectively blackmail, a crime itself and in my opinion should be outlawed.

There's more than enough evidence to suggest he is guilty of the crimes he's accused of, and if he was a commoner he would almost certainly be in the Big House now.

And on blackmail, if you've done nothing wrong you can't be blackmailed. That's not quite true is it. Moving on swiftly ....
 
There's more than enough evidence to suggest he is guilty of the crimes he's accused of, and if he was a commoner he would almost certainly be in the Big House now.

And on blackmail, if you've done nothing wrong you can't be blackmailed. That's not quite true is it. Moving on swiftly ....
If that is true, then he should have been tried and convicted. There should not be options for these accusers to accept huge sums of money not to seek justice.
As far as I am concerned blackmail is exactly what it is. The only way such accusers should be able to gain financially from such matters is from compensation following safe conviction.
Is there any evidence against Greenwood?
 
If that is true, then he should have been tried and convicted. There should not be options for these accusers to accept huge sums of money not to seek justice.
As far as I am concerned blackmail is exactly what it is. The only way such accusers should be able to gain financially from such matters is from compensation following safe conviction.
Is there any evidence against Greenwood?

Sorry mate i'm chipping out as I didn't follow the case closely enough at the time, but in that interview considering the media training he would've had on what to say/not say and controlling the narrative from a very young age he looked guilty as hell, and i'd imagine everybody else that watched thought exactly the same, even royalists. It felt as if the interview went on for another few minutes he'd say "Okay, okay, i've been a very naughty boy and i'm going to my room now and will stay there till Mamma says I can leave"
 
Have a look at that photo. She looks to me like someone who is positively glowing, and positively seeking association with the rich and famous. Not someone who is being abused. And then the blackmail started. She's an old slapper!

The photo that doesn't exist because he never met her?

As for the way she looks, she looks like a kid that shouldn't be in that situation. Surrounded by grown men that should know better. The bounds you'll go to to defend him are hilarious.

Again as for Mason Greenwood I don't recall him paying a settlement fee or using his status to evade questioning by the police.
 
Come on, we heard the Greenwood tape. don't defend that
 
The photo that doesn't exist because he never met her?

As for the way she looks, she looks like a kid that shouldn't be in that situation. Surrounded by grown men that should know better. The bounds you'll go to to defend him are hilarious.

Again as for Mason Greenwood I don't recall him paying a settlement fee or using his status to evade questioning by the police.
I don’t think it was a possibility for him to use his status to evade questioning by the police.
 
The photo that doesn't exist because he never met her?

As for the way she looks, she looks like a kid that shouldn't be in that situation. Surrounded by grown men that should know better. The bounds you'll go to to defend him are hilarious.

Again as for Mason Greenwood I don't recall him paying a settlement fee or using his status to evade questioning by the police.
I have told you before and I will tell you again. I haven't defended him. I also haven't condemned him. As previously stated he should have been tried for what he was accused of. In such cases where it is clear the accusers are motivated by large sums of money, it treat them very suspiciously. Guiffre was clearly motivated by large sums of money and is little more than an auld opportunist slapper.

It is you who seeks to defend others accused of sexual misdemeanours, not me!

Why did Evan Chandler commit suicide only months after Michael Jacksons untimely death?

And another thing. It is way over the top to be calling someone a paedophile for alleged liasons with a 17yr old. What feckin planet do you live on! Sam Fox, Jordan and the likes were all getting their tits out in national newspapers at that age. Most people male and female are not just sexually active at that age, more like feckin rampant, as was I.
Of course, you would have been selling copies of the Salvationist outside St Francis of Assisi's
 
I don’t think it was a possibility for him to use his status to evade questioning by the police.
Do you really think Greenwood would not have had a team working to try and ensure his life and career wasn't totally ruined and influencing things to meet that goal. Once the girl changed tact and refused to be a willing witness Greenwood had indeed evaded the scrutiny of the police as there was no longer a complaint to answer to. And according to IDFD he should have been free to continue his life as normal, including playing for United unless found guilty in a court. So, how hypocritical is that?
 
Come on, we heard the Greenwood tape. don't defend that

I don't defend it. But he's not paid a settlement or been found guilty.

Unlike the Prince. Whose paid off those accusing him.

There is a world of difference and those trying to equate the same to defend the Prince obviously have a point to peddle. Love the royals all you want. Don't expect the educated to turn a blind eye.
 
Do you really think Greenwood would not have had a team working to try and ensure his life and career wasn't totally ruined and influencing things to meet that goal. Once the girl changed tact and refused to be a willing witness Greenwood had indeed evaded the scrutiny of the police as there was no longer a complaint to answer to. And according to IDFD he should have been free to continue his life as normal, including playing for United unless found guilty in a court. So, how hypocritical is that?

You pointed out the major difference. The girl in the Greenwood case withdrew her complaint.

The girl making the accusation against the Prince was paid to be silent.
 
I don't defend it. But he's not paid a settlement or been found guilty.

Unlike the Prince. Whose paid off those accusing him.

There is a world of difference and those trying to equate the same to defend the Prince obviously have a point to peddle. Love the royals all you want. Don't expect the educated to turn a blind eye.
You said he should be allowed to carry on unless found guilty by a court! At which point you were defending him despite damning evidence. It's as simple as that.
 
You pointed out the major difference. The girl in the Greenwood case withdrew her complaint.

The girl making the accusation against the Prince was paid to be silent.
She was a bit feckin late having already announced to the world the prolonged treatment she had been subjected to.
Oh, and Greenwood has never denied it.
 
Locking this thread for a bit as it’s heading towards dodgy ground, if it hasn’t already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
or Log in using
Don't have an account? Register now
Back
Top