Not A Dry Eye In Thje House.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://metro.co.uk/2022/11/27/prince-andrew-furious-at-losing-taxpayer-funded-bodyguards-17833830/

[youngmafbog]

//Surely the funds can come from the Royal estates?//

Not if plod are doing it - The Police are not for sale. They could of course have private ones for him like any other citizen at risk.

Personally I couldnt give a monkeys about his security, he didnt seem too worried going around with criminals in the past did he?

[jno]

were they criminals when he was going around with him? We don't know, and I don't think we should overdo the hindsight.

[fitdarren]

Good point at 9:18.

[andy-hughes]

YMB - // //Surely the funds can come from the Royal estates?//

Not if plod are doing it - The Police are not for sale. They could of course have private ones for him like any other citizen at risk. //

That's actually what I meant, but did not make clear in my post.

The RF is more than wealthy enough to supply security for members who are no longer working as active royals, and as such do not qualify for tax-funded security.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // That said, he committed no crime. //

Legally, no he didn't.

But if damaging the RF's reputation while nuclearising his own simultaneously was a crime ...

But it's not, so legally, he remains innocent, having not gone to trial.

[naomi24]

He didn’t

[naomi24]

Pressed the button by mistake. I’ll try again. He didn’t commit a crime.

[Zacs-Master]

How can you be so certain, Naomi?

[New Judge]

//He didn’t commit a crime.//

More specifically, he has not been found guilty of any crime. Once you do the deed you have committed a crime and you are guilty of it. You may not be convicted; you may not be prosecuted; you may not even be apprehended. But you are just as guilty. As I have said before, "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal convention, not a fact.

[naomi24]

More specifically still, the law hasn’t charged him with committing a crime.

[Zacs-Master]

That’s not more specific, it’s a completely different point.

[naomi24]

Not really. NJ said he’s not been found guilty but he wasn’t charged so that’s a given.

[andy-hughes]

NJ - What 'deed' do you believe constitutes an actual legal crime in this instance?

[New Judge]

I don't know, Andy. I have not followed the Price Andrew saga very closely and don't know what he is supposed to have done or not done.

My comments were of a general nature about the difference between being guilty of an offence and being convicted of it.

[andy-hughes]

New Judge - // I don't know, Andy. I have not followed the Price Andrew saga very closely and don't know what he is supposed to have done or not done.

My comments were of a general nature about the difference between being guilty of an offence and being convicted of it. //

Fair enough.

Although I entirely take your point about the commission of a crime as against the conviction for it, in this instance, as someone who has followed the saga closely, I am aligned with Naomi's view - Prince Andrew has not committed a crime under British criminal law, and the court case he was potentially facing was in the civil courts.

[New Judge]

Yes Andy, I'd followed it that far. But I don't know the detail. I thought there was an allegation of criminal activity for which there was insufficient evidence, so the alleged victim resorted to a civil claim. But that's only a guess.

If so, that does, of course bring my point into play. He may have "done the deed" (and so is guilty of an offence) but no criminal prosecution followed, so he's "not guilty."