Prince Andrew 'is furious with ministers

HAYSIE

over decision to axe his £3m-a-year taxpayer-funded police bodyguard' after he was stripped of his official duties in wake of Epstein scandal



As a working royal Prince Andrew was entitled to a taxpayer funded security detail, but this will now end next month. It follows him being stripped of all his official duties following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11474001/Prince-Andrew-furious-axe-3m-year-police-bodyguard-Epstein-scandal.html

HAYSIE

Prince Andrew is branded 'over-inflated egotist' by ex-head of royal security as 'furious' Duke faces losing £3million a-year taxpayer-funded police protection following Epstein scandal



A former head of royal protection has slammed Prince Andrew after he demanded to keep his armed police guards. He was reportedly left fuming after he was informed by government ministers that his £3m-a-year armed police guards were to be axed from December in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. But the King's brother, 62, is not going down without a fight - and has been arguing to keep his round-the-clock protection. Now, Dai Davies, a former top cop has slammed Prince Andrew and said that the money used to protect the royal could instead be used to solve thousands of crimes in London.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11475885/Prince-Andrew-branded-egotist-ex-head-royal-security-faces-losing-3m-protection.html

Tikay10

What real evidence - REAL evidence - do we have that Prince Andrew has "demanded to keep his armed guards" or that he is "furious"?

Essexphil

Tikay10 said:

What real evidence - REAL evidence - do we have that Prince Andrew has "demanded to keep his armed guards" or that he is "furious"?

Apparently, a "source" has said he intends to appeal the decision to the Home Office. With friends like that, presumably Andrew doesn't need enemies.

2 things strike me about this whole story:-

1. Why on earth is all this sort of thing being made public? Surely that increases the risk.
2. £3 million a year? Really? What-to have a couple of blokes on standby for when he wants to pretend to do some work?

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

What real evidence - REAL evidence - do we have that Prince Andrew has "demanded to keep his armed guards" or that he is "furious"?

There is apparently a source.
Both stories say pretty much the same.

And the latest decision suggests he has no real hope of returning as a working royal any time soon

A source told the Sun on Sunday: “He is going to write to the Home Office and the Met Police to complain about losing his taxpayer-funded security.”

Andrew’s diva-like demand for continued taxpayer funding is likely to spark a backlash from the public as they struggle with rocketing bills

One senior Labour MP said: “He doesn’t seem to understand that he’s in disgrace and people don’t want to hear from him any more — especially him with his begging bowl.

Representatives for Prince Andrew declined to comment.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20562392/prince-andrew-fury-losing-armed-cops/

Tikay10

Ahh, the journo's ever-present get out.

a source


Presumably, a source with no name.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

What real evidence - REAL evidence - do we have that Prince Andrew has "demanded to keep his armed guards" or that he is "furious"?

I didnt like this bit.

But the decision to remove his police security is the latest sign that King Charles is to hold a firm stance against Andrew's demands.

It has been widely reported the disgraced royal had been lobbying his late mother for a return to royal life, and earlier this month it was revealed he had to be 'dressed down' by Charles just days before his mother's death.

Charles had been tipped off by the Queen's senior staff that Andrew's 'persistent lobbying' of the ailing monarch to restore him as a 'working royal' was 'taking its toll', a source told the Daily Mail's Ephraim Hardcastle column.

At the meeting on his Birkhall estate in Scotland, the future king made it clear to Andrew he would never return to royal duties.

Charles also made the point to his brother that if he was ever restored to his position it would be hard to find a charity that would want him as patron.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11475885/Prince-Andrew-branded-egotist-ex-head-royal-security-faces-losing-3m-protection.html

Tikay10

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

Tikay10

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

1) Common-sense.

2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

1) Common-sense.

2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.

I accept that nothing can be proved either way.
However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family.
It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards.
So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not.
Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

1) Common-sense.

2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.

I accept that nothing can be proved either way.
However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family.
It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards.
So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not.
Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.

Just to play devil's advocate here, for a minute.

A Royal is always going to be something of an attractive terror target, whether "working royal" or not.

In much the same way as former Prime Ministers. Who are entitled to lifelong round the clock police protection. Regardless of how relevant they may be. Or how much they are liked by the new PM, or the Public.

PS. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 of you. There will be a kernel of truth in the original story-for example Charles is less fond of Andrew than his Mum was, and Andrew wants continued protection of some sort.

Then the Mail blow it up out of all proportion. As usual.

Tikay10

Oh, I'm sure it's accurate that he will no longer have "protection" as he's not a functioning Royal any more.

I just think all that "he's furious" & "he demanded it continue" stuff is pure fiction.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

1) Common-sense.

2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.

I accept that nothing can be proved either way.
However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family.
It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards.
So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not.
Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.

Just to play devil's advocate here, for a minute.

A Royal is always going to be something of an attractive terror target, whether "working royal" or not.

I couldnt argue with that.
Then the question is how far do you go?

In much the same way as former Prime Ministers. Who are entitled to lifelong round the clock police protection. Regardless of how relevant they may be. Or how much they are liked by the new PM, or the Public.

PS. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 of you. There will be a kernel of truth in the original story-for example Charles is less fond of Andrew than his Mum was, and Andrew wants continued protection of some sort.

I have no proof, but I could see him being furious over it.

Then the Mail blow it up out of all proportion. As usual.

Although they are not the only paper covering the story.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

1) Common-sense.

2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.

I accept that nothing can be proved either way.
However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family.
It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards.
So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not.
Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.

Just to play devil's advocate here, for a minute.

A Royal is always going to be something of an attractive terror target, whether "working royal" or not.

I couldnt argue with that.
Then the question is how far do you go?

In much the same way as former Prime Ministers. Who are entitled to lifelong round the clock police protection. Regardless of how relevant they may be. Or how much they are liked by the new PM, or the Public.

PS. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 of you. There will be a kernel of truth in the original story-for example Charles is less fond of Andrew than his Mum was, and Andrew wants continued protection of some sort.

I have no proof, but I could see him being furious over it.

Then the Mail blow it up out of all proportion. As usual.

Although they are not the only paper covering the story.

The question is indeed "how far do you go".

In the case of the Royals, not as far as former Prime Ministers, apparently. That is all PMs-from the globetrotting egomaniacs that are Blair and Johnson, to the nonentities that are May and Truss.

I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is interesting.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

1) Common-sense.

2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.

I accept that nothing can be proved either way.
However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family.
It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards.
So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not.
Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.

Just to play devil's advocate here, for a minute.

A Royal is always going to be something of an attractive terror target, whether "working royal" or not.

I couldnt argue with that.
Then the question is how far do you go?

In much the same way as former Prime Ministers. Who are entitled to lifelong round the clock police protection. Regardless of how relevant they may be. Or how much they are liked by the new PM, or the Public.

PS. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 of you. There will be a kernel of truth in the original story-for example Charles is less fond of Andrew than his Mum was, and Andrew wants continued protection of some sort.

I have no proof, but I could see him being furious over it.

Then the Mail blow it up out of all proportion. As usual.

Although they are not the only paper covering the story.

The question is indeed "how far do you go".

In the case of the Royals, not as far as former Prime Ministers, apparently. That is all PMs-from the globetrotting egomaniacs that are Blair and Johnson, to the nonentities that are May and Truss.

I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is interesting.

I meant how far do you go in regard to the Royals.
How far down the pecking order do you go?

Tikay10

Pretty galling that we will have to foot the bill to give Ms Truss protection for the rest of her life.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

1) Common-sense.

2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.

I accept that nothing can be proved either way.
However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family.
It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards.
So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not.
Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.

Just to play devil's advocate here, for a minute.

A Royal is always going to be something of an attractive terror target, whether "working royal" or not.

I couldnt argue with that.
Then the question is how far do you go?

In much the same way as former Prime Ministers. Who are entitled to lifelong round the clock police protection. Regardless of how relevant they may be. Or how much they are liked by the new PM, or the Public.

PS. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 of you. There will be a kernel of truth in the original story-for example Charles is less fond of Andrew than his Mum was, and Andrew wants continued protection of some sort.

I have no proof, but I could see him being furious over it.

Then the Mail blow it up out of all proportion. As usual.

Although they are not the only paper covering the story.

The question is indeed "how far do you go".

In the case of the Royals, not as far as former Prime Ministers, apparently. That is all PMs-from the globetrotting egomaniacs that are Blair and Johnson, to the nonentities that are May and Truss.

I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is interesting.

I meant how far do you go in regard to the Royals.
How far down the pecking order do you go?

That's where it gets a bit tricky. Because it varies over time. Younger siblings are downgraded with the changing of a Monarch, and always have been.

In stark contrast to politicians, which is why I gave the comparison. Why should past service be all-important for 1, and irrelevant for the other?

tai-gar

Where were Andrew's protection officers when he went for the Pizza?

If he can answer that he should keep his protection IMO.

If they were with him then his alibi stacks up.

If they were not with him then he didn't need them. If he didn't need them then he doesn't need them now.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).

If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.

Isnt that pots and kettles?
What evidence would you have for saying that?

1) Common-sense.

2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.

I accept that nothing can be proved either way.
However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family.
It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards.
So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not.
Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.

Just to play devil's advocate here, for a minute.

A Royal is always going to be something of an attractive terror target, whether "working royal" or not.

I couldnt argue with that.
Then the question is how far do you go?

In much the same way as former Prime Ministers. Who are entitled to lifelong round the clock police protection. Regardless of how relevant they may be. Or how much they are liked by the new PM, or the Public.

PS. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 of you. There will be a kernel of truth in the original story-for example Charles is less fond of Andrew than his Mum was, and Andrew wants continued protection of some sort.

I have no proof, but I could see him being furious over it.

Then the Mail blow it up out of all proportion. As usual.

Although they are not the only paper covering the story.

The question is indeed "how far do you go".

In the case of the Royals, not as far as former Prime Ministers, apparently. That is all PMs-from the globetrotting egomaniacs that are Blair and Johnson, to the nonentities that are May and Truss.

I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is interesting.

I meant how far do you go in regard to the Royals.
How far down the pecking order do you go?

That's where it gets a bit tricky. Because it varies over time. Younger siblings are downgraded with the changing of a Monarch, and always have been.

In stark contrast to politicians, which is why I gave the comparison. Why should past service be all-important for 1, and irrelevant for the other?

It is tricky.
As much as I dislike the bloke, I wouldnt wish for him to become a terrorist target as a result of this.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

Pretty galling that we will have to foot the bill to give Ms Truss protection for the rest of her life.

Very.