www.thecut.com
You do not have a point because you do not even understand what my post is about. Howard had people like you mind ****ed already.
When the republicans couldn't agree how it work, how much it would cost etc why would people vote for a change to a system that works?
Forget all the bullshit surrounding it and how Howard manipulates the exact wording to have the referendum, when you ask yourself should the Queen be head of state of our nation, the answer is simple. Anything you voting to keep that in place is all you had to ask yourself. If you voted to keep the Queen the head of the State your got your level of stupidity of the average voter.
If, as many royal observers have claimed, the Duke of York’s decision to submit himself to an Emily Maitlis grilling represented a colossal gamble by a man desperate to make the flow of negative headlines dry up, then it appears he has bet the house on red only for it to come up black.
Prince Andrew’s bizarre defence that he chose to stay at convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s home because it was “convenient” and “honourable” has gone down badly in the court of public opinion.
And now his defence of their relationship and his explanations for where he was on key dates when he is alleged to have had sex with women procured by Epstein has met similar derision.
The prince was confronted about his relationship with the financier: why did he visit him in New York in 2010, despite knowing Epstein had been convicted of sex offences against underage girls? Did he know Epstein was still committing offences against children then? And had he himself had sex at several of Epstein’s houses with Virginia Giuffre, then known as Virginia Roberts, when she was 17? She claims in court papers she was trafficked and forced to have sex with the prince.
He seemed unconcerned by the seriousness of the matter, laughing and smiling at several points during the interview – including when Maitlis reminded him that Epstein was dead – and expressed no regrets or concern about Epstein’s victims.
No, the duke said repeatedly, he had not slept with Roberts. “I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.”
He later added: “It just never happened”, saying: “I am not one to, as it were, hug, and public displays of affection are not something that I do.”
His relationship with Epstein was based entirely on the fact that he was the boyfriend of the prince’s university friend Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell. Epstein was “a plus one” who was invited to various royal events. It had been “beneficial” to know him, he told Maitlis, in one of several exchanges that provoked astonishment from viewers.
She asked if he felt any “guilt, regret or shame” about his behaviour or friendship with Epstein.
The prince did not. He said only that it was “the wrong decision to go and see him in 2010”. He went on: “Do I regret the fact that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes...”
Maitlis interrupted, with visible amazement: “Unbecoming? He was a sex offender.”
“Yeah, I’m sorry, I’m being polite – I mean in the sense that he was a sex offender,” the prince replied, before continuing his justification for remaining in contact with Epstein until 2010.
The prince insisted that, as patron of the NSPCC’s Full Stop campaign, he “knew what the things were to look for” when it came to sexual abuse. But later in the interview, when asked about his time in Epstein’s properties, he said there was “absolutely no indication” that anything was going on. Epstein must have concealed his activities, the prince explained, and suggested that his status as a member of the royal family meant he was used to “members of staff” being around the building.
The prince’s answers are likely to ensure he remains in the headlines for the conceivable future, and several commentators have condemned his approach. Catherine Mayer, founder of the Women’s Equality Party, tweeted that the prince was “too stupid to even pretend concern for Epstein’s victims”.
Charlie Proctor, editor of the Royal Central website, said: “I expected a train wreck. That was a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion level bad.”
It is known that some close to the prince had reservations about how the interview – reportedly the result of six months of negotiations with the royal household – would play out.
Jason Stein, who previously worked for the former work and pensions secretary Amber Rudd, recently quit as an adviser to the prince after less than a month. It is understood he had disagreed with the decision to go ahead with the interview. It is claimed that the prince sought permission from the Queen before giving it, and that she gave her consent early last week.
In the interview, the prince said that with “hindsight” his decision to stay at Epstein’s house was “definitely the wrong thing to do”.
Giuffre’s lawyers did not respond to requests for comment but her Twitter account retweeted a comment from the former editor of the Northern Echo, Peter Barron, who said: “Astonishing decision by the royal family to go ahead with this Prince Andrew confessional interview in the hope it would draw a line under the scandal. It will have the opposite effect.”
It is the first time the prince has answered questions on his relationship with Epstein, who was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell in August. In 2015, Prince Andrew used a public appearance at Davos in Switzerland to deny the claims. In 2010, he had been photographed walking with Epstein in New York’s Central Park – two years after Epstein’s first conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution.
Addressing his decision to stay with Epstein following the financier’s conviction in 2008, the prince said: “That’s the bit that … as it were, I kick myself for on a daily basis because it was not something that was becoming of a member of the royal family, and we try and uphold the highest standards and practices and I let the side down, simple as that.”
The prince denied his relationship with Epstein had damaged the monarch. “I don’t believe it’s been damaging to the Queen at all – it has to me, and it’s been a constant drip, if you see what I mean.”
Giuffre’s lawyer, Jack Scarola, told Mail Online the prince should agree to an interview “under oath” instead of giving statements to the media that carry “little weight”.
He said: “I believe there is an ongoing investigation in New York by the FBI under the supervision of the US Attorney’s office into those involved in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse.
“I would love to see Prince Andrew submit to an interview under oath with the investigating authorities. Talking to the media doesn’t quite cut it. Statements that are not under oath carry little weight.”
High-stakes gamble on TV interview over Epstein backfires on Duke of York
Decision to face questions on BBC programme draws critical reaction from woman at centre of allegationswww.theguardian.com
