Going out on a limb here, but I would like to note that it is very, very well known that “the man formerly known as Prince Andrew”, was “She who is never to be criticised” (yup, we foreigners notice that she is above criticism among Brits :D) favorite son.
So (just trying to be fairer than fair here) I am not sure it is King Charles that should be criticised for protecting him and his way of life. He has barely been king for a day before the Epstein scandal broke after all. Andrew’s past behaviour, all on his mother’s watch.
That doesn’t mean that Charles would not have protected him previously. But fair is fair.
The Queen protected Andrew. Probably a combination of naïveté, the misplaced love of a mother, and an old school stance that viewed the institution of the Royal Family as almost untouchable.
Charles has - belatedly, as pointed out - stripped Andrew of his royal status, titles and privileges along the way, and then he openly indicated that the Royal Family would of course cooperate with the police, who have now made their move. Charles can be criticized over how he has handled his brother, but to my mind not too much, as he is doing the right thing.
Anyway, the main point is what happens to Andrew, and where will it lead? Is it just going to be a trade deal, where one rich man helps another rich man to get even richer? It’s something, but not exactly the justice we want to see.
Until now the royal family’s involvements with the law have been minimal. In her wilder days Princess Anne’s dog bit a girl in Windsor Great Park and she was fined £500. She was also fined £400 for speeding in Gloucestershire. Apart from that, researchers into royal quarrels with the law have had to go back to Charles I and Mary, Queen of Scots.
Not good precedents there for AMW. He could be for the chop. Metaphorically, of course.
This is stunning. Surely they won’t try an invasion? That would be suicide. Iran is a completely different kettle of fish than Iraq. Even Trump and co. can’t be that stupid.
No, there is no invasion force ready (apart from a few marines). The US Army is not shipped over, so no invasion !
Apologies if I was not clear, I attempted a comparison of force posture, so people understand that this will not be a 12 day limited bombing campaign, but major in scale. Shock and Awe.
But 100 fuel tankers. Lots of munitions and lots of aircrafts and naval vessels.
It will be a sustained bombing campaign until Iran folds. No invasion threat. But we are going to see weeks of heavy bombing of Iranian nuclear, but also it’s security apparatus and military.
They haven’t been slow, they’ve been on it well before all of us, and have sought to cosset him and ameliorate the fallout, and are still doing it. Seen here clearly in the ambiguous charge of misfeasance when he’s been inter alia actively nobbing minors in the US.
I saw a video from Dimbleby today, claiming it has not damaged the Royals they will roll out a counter narrative now and deploy all their loyals to it. Is Jenny Bond still going?
Ah ok, I understand now. So, only aerial forces. That won’t achieve much I think (if Trump has even an idea of what he wants to achieve, that is), apart from spreading more suffering among the population, and making the US even more hated in that part of the world. But maybe that’s the goal? Nothing would surprise me anymore coming from that fat orang-outan (an insult for these magnificent animals, I know).