I know that, my question was do you have to ? like the MP's do.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.
So how is King Charles a protector of peadophiles.?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.?
Tell me when Andrew was convicted of being a peadophile ?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 ?
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 AfghanistanWhy 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)
Any other family he'd be in prison by nowI'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
Well how come Michael Jackson never went to prison?
It was stated, Any other family and he would be in prison by now.People with more money than God rarely go to prison, you should know that.
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.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.
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.
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.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?
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!
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.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.
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?I don’t think it was a possibility for him to use his status to evade questioning by the police.
Come on, we heard the Greenwood tape. don't defend that
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 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.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.
She was a bit feckin late having already announced to the world the prolonged treatment she had been subjected to.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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.