FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Prince Andrew Heckler -Men Charged
Prince Andrew Heckler -Men Charged
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"This is nonce sense, Tom." Off on holiday to the Paedoph Isles next year? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders." Especially when there were no 'children' involved. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders." Who was the child sex offender they were calling out? Winston | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"As far as I know we are allowed freedom of speech still . Wasn't up to random members of the public to tackle him just because they didn't agree with his protest " Freedom of speech has limitations. You cannot libel or slander people and expect to get away with it simply because you imagine that you are 'entitled' to your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"As far as I know we are allowed freedom of speech still . Wasn't up to random members of the public to tackle him just because they didn't agree with his protest Freedom of speech has limitations. You cannot libel or slander people and expect to get away with it simply because you imagine that you are 'entitled' to your opinion. " I think a sense of "imagined entitlement" is at the root cause of a lot of problems. Winston | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"As far as I know we are allowed freedom of speech still . Wasn't up to random members of the public to tackle him just because they didn't agree with his protest Freedom of speech has limitations. You cannot libel or slander people and expect to get away with it simply because you imagine that you are 'entitled' to your opinion. " Whether or not the heckler was within his rights, I don't think assault is an approved penalty for libel. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders." No the heckler should not be given a medal.wrong time wrong place and disrespectful to the Queens funeral. The two who tackled him perhaps did so because they felt the same as I do and should not be penalised. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. No the heckler should not be given a medal.wrong time wrong place and disrespectful to the Queens funeral. The two who tackled him perhaps did so because they felt the same as I do and should not be penalised." So people can assault other people when they're offended? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Members of the public should not assault those who merely express an opinion. It is of course the job of the police to beat up those who express opinions which upset our lords and masters of the ruling classes."  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"As far as I know we are allowed freedom of speech still . Wasn't up to random members of the public to tackle him just because they didn't agree with his protest Freedom of speech has limitations. You cannot libel or slander people and expect to get away with it simply because you imagine that you are 'entitled' to your opinion. Whether or not the heckler was within his rights, I don't think assault is an approved penalty for libel." It certainly isn't. Which is why I don't support their action. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. Especially when there were no 'children' involved." She was under 18 and trafficked. It is illegal to pay for sex with someone under the age of 18 therefore she is still under the age of consent based on the law. It’s weird how many people defend nonces. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. Especially when there were no 'children' involved. She was under 18 and trafficked. It is illegal to pay for sex with someone under the age of 18 therefore she is still under the age of consent based on the law. It’s weird how many people defend nonces." Who is defending nonces ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. No the heckler should not be given a medal.wrong time wrong place and disrespectful to the Queens funeral. The two who tackled him perhaps did so because they felt the same as I do and should not be penalised." If a nonce turns up at my mothers funeral you best believe that is the time and place to call them out. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"What if he had a gun ?" Then I doubt he’d have been shouting anything. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"What if he had a gun ?" What if he had a pineapple | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. Especially when there were no 'children' involved. She was under 18 and trafficked. It is illegal to pay for sex with someone under the age of 18 therefore she is still under the age of consent based on the law. It’s weird how many people defend nonces. Who is defending nonces ? " He is a nonce. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. Especially when there were no 'children' involved. She was under 18 and trafficked. It is illegal to pay for sex with someone under the age of 18 therefore she is still under the age of consent based on the law. It’s weird how many people defend nonces. Who is defending nonces ? He is a nonce. " Who is defending nonces ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. Especially when there were no 'children' involved. She was under 18 and trafficked. It is illegal to pay for sex with someone under the age of 18 therefore she is still under the age of consent based on the law. It’s weird how many people defend nonces. Who is defending nonces ? He is a nonce. Who is defending nonces ?" You’re saying no children were involved sounds like you’re defending him. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Or he could have had a knife " You call that a knife? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"What if he had a gun ?" There are three people. Two committed an act of violence. Why are you asking if the one who was not violent might have been armed? I'm much more concerned about people who we know committed violence. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"For all we knew this man could of been an assassin " He could be a baker. What if he had cake? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"As far as I know we are allowed freedom of speech still . " ........................ What about rights to freedom of hearing? Why should our auditory senses be assaulted by people we don't want to listen to? They should shout into a paperbag in a darkened room  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"For all we knew this man could of been an assassin He could be a baker. What if he had cake?" People are being silly now.. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. No the heckler should not be given a medal.wrong time wrong place and disrespectful to the Queens funeral. The two who tackled him perhaps did so because they felt the same as I do and should not be penalised." Agree with this x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. Especially when there were no 'children' involved. She was under 18 and trafficked. It is illegal to pay for sex with someone under the age of 18 therefore she is still under the age of consent based on the law. It’s weird how many people defend nonces. Who is defending nonces ? He is a nonce. Who is defending nonces ? You’re saying no children were involved sounds like you’re defending him." I would say that was stating the obvious and not defending nonces Either way,that subject shouldn't be on the forum so lets drop it please | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"For all we knew this man could of been an assassin He could be a baker. What if he had cake? People are being silly now.. " Both hypotheticals are as silly as each other. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The heckler has already been charged with breach of the peace. The two men will presumably claim they acted to prevent a further offence which is a legal defence. Hopefully they will get off and the heckler gets 5 years in solitary. "You hope that he gets 5 years for shouting, and the others get off for assault? Weird. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Or he could have had a knife " Id have disarmed him with my croissant !!! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The heckler in Scotland shouted abuse at Prince Andrew and two members of the public wrestled him to the ground. They have been charged with assault by the Scottish Chief of Police. Should they be jailed or given a medal? This is all over the news. What's going on here guys?" Jail You can’t assault someone for words | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I am no lover of Andrew but he has not been on trial for anything.. Guilty until proved innocent or the other way round.. ?" Not a clue. These violent criminals will have their day in court, though. Which was the topic of your OP. I'm delighted to see the police uphold the peace by bringing these ruffians before the court. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished" They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. " Ok If they get found guilty of breaking the law then they should be punished Did you see them manhandle the man Tom? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. " Having seen the video, there’s something wrong with our justice system if they are | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. " I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522" is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'?" If it goes to court I think it is not guilty. If it doesn’t it is usually no further action. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'?" Not guilty includes "probably did it but the government haven't entirely proven it". (I'm not familiar enough with Scots law, which is at issue here, to comment on the intersection between not guilty and not proven) But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If they are charged, tried and found guilty they should be given the punishment the offence warrants. Thats the way the law works, you're guilty if found to be so by due process and 12 good men and true. Unlike the court of public opinion, in which it appears you're guilty even if you've never been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Winston " Agreed entirely. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'? Not guilty includes "probably did it but the government haven't entirely proven it". (I'm not familiar enough with Scots law, which is at issue here, to comment on the intersection between not guilty and not proven) But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally." then it must also be impossible in uk law | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522" Thanks for the link. So many people cherry pick and invent laws on here. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If they are charged, tried and found guilty they should be given the punishment the offence warrants. Thats the way the law works, you're guilty if found to be so by due process and 12 good men and true. Unlike the court of public opinion, in which it appears you're guilty even if you've never been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Winston " It's their opinion and they'd hang anyone by it .... Saves being wrong I guess. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'? Not guilty includes "probably did it but the government haven't entirely proven it". (I'm not familiar enough with Scots law, which is at issue here, to comment on the intersection between not guilty and not proven) But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally. then it must also be impossible in uk law " This will be tried under Scots law. In criminal law England and Wales are separate from Scots and all are separate from NI. I'm not aware of "innocent" as a finding under common law (UK, most English speaking countries, etc - Scots is a civil/common law hybrid) | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If they are charged, tried and found guilty they should be given the punishment the offence warrants. Thats the way the law works, you're guilty if found to be so by due process and 12 good men and true. Unlike the court of public opinion, in which it appears you're guilty even if you've never been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Winston It's their opinion and they'd hang anyone by it .... Saves being wrong I guess. " I stand by my opinion, but I wouldn't take action over it, much less with the power of the state behind it  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'? Not guilty includes "probably did it but the government haven't entirely proven it". (I'm not familiar enough with Scots law, which is at issue here, to comment on the intersection between not guilty and not proven) But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally. then it must also be impossible in uk law This will be tried under Scots law. In criminal law England and Wales are separate from Scots and all are separate from NI. I'm not aware of "innocent" as a finding under common law (UK, most English speaking countries, etc - Scots is a civil/common law hybrid)" what i'm aluding to is that just like uk law, scots law also has 'not guilty'. if you are asserting that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent that i'm just asking what your interpretation of 'not guilty' actually is. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'? Not guilty includes "probably did it but the government haven't entirely proven it". (I'm not familiar enough with Scots law, which is at issue here, to comment on the intersection between not guilty and not proven) But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally. then it must also be impossible in uk law This will be tried under Scots law. In criminal law England and Wales are separate from Scots and all are separate from NI. I'm not aware of "innocent" as a finding under common law (UK, most English speaking countries, etc - Scots is a civil/common law hybrid) what i'm aluding to is that just like uk law, scots law also has 'not guilty'. if you are asserting that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent that i'm just asking what your interpretation of 'not guilty' actually is." Guilty means proven to the standard required in the particular court. Not guilty means everything else, from "probably guilty but not quite enough evidence" through to "clearly innocent". They will never be proven innocent. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They should be treated the same as anyone else who assaults someone. The heckler should be given the medal. It is never not the time and the place to call out child sex offenders. Who was the child sex offender they were calling out? Winston " Absolutely Winston, This alleged sex 'offence' is NOT an offence under British law. The girl was 17 years old and over the age of consent of 16 years and she agreed in statements that any acts committed were consensual. Also it should be noted that in 34 US states the age of consent is also 16 years and in 6 other states its 17 years in the remaining states its 18 years. None of which states she was in when the consensual acts took place. In her original statement she said they had sex in London. When she registered her civil(not criminal) lawsuit in New York she 'suddenly' remembers they had sex on Epsteins Island. An American territory in the US virgin Islands where the age of consent is also 16 years old. So, I fail to see where the offence is. Is Prince Andrew an entitled arsehole...YES!!! Is he a dickhead...YES!!! A total pratt...YES!!! And stupid and in my opinion a total See you next tuesday and cockwomble. However none of these matter in the eyes of the law and under British law he has not committed an offence. The bigger questions for me are: 1. When did we become subject to American Law? 2. What idiots were advising Andrew? If he'd said yes I had legal consensual sex with her and it was a stupid thing to do. Everyone would have gone... you prick and forgot all about it. Because he was told to say nothing and then lied it all blew up in his face, which quite honestly he deserved. But legally it still comes back to he didnt break british law. Unfortunately being an unmitigated idiot and cockwomble is not illegal...although in his case perhaps it should be. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'? Not guilty includes "probably did it but the government haven't entirely proven it". (I'm not familiar enough with Scots law, which is at issue here, to comment on the intersection between not guilty and not proven) But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally. then it must also be impossible in uk law This will be tried under Scots law. In criminal law England and Wales are separate from Scots and all are separate from NI. I'm not aware of "innocent" as a finding under common law (UK, most English speaking countries, etc - Scots is a civil/common law hybrid) what i'm aluding to is that just like uk law, scots law also has 'not guilty'. if you are asserting that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent that i'm just asking what your interpretation of 'not guilty' actually is. Guilty means proven to the standard required in the particular court. Not guilty means everything else, from "probably guilty but not quite enough evidence" through to "clearly innocent". They will never be proven innocent." so you're saying so 'not guilty' means 'maybe guilty, we don't really know' .... interesting concept | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If they are charged, tried and found guilty they should be given the punishment the offence warrants. Thats the way the law works, you're guilty if found to be so by due process and 12 good men and true. Unlike the court of public opinion, in which it appears you're guilty even if you've never been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Winston " While I’m not a fan of the court of public opinion, in this case where we have very clear video of someone being grabbed and thrown to the floor, I’ll let it slide | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'? Not guilty includes "probably did it but the government haven't entirely proven it". (I'm not familiar enough with Scots law, which is at issue here, to comment on the intersection between not guilty and not proven) But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally. then it must also be impossible in uk law This will be tried under Scots law. In criminal law England and Wales are separate from Scots and all are separate from NI. I'm not aware of "innocent" as a finding under common law (UK, most English speaking countries, etc - Scots is a civil/common law hybrid) what i'm aluding to is that just like uk law, scots law also has 'not guilty'. if you are asserting that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent that i'm just asking what your interpretation of 'not guilty' actually is. Guilty means proven to the standard required in the particular court. Not guilty means everything else, from "probably guilty but not quite enough evidence" through to "clearly innocent". They will never be proven innocent. so you're saying so 'not guilty' means 'maybe guilty, we don't really know' .... interesting concept" Yes. In criminal law people need to be found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". For the sake of argument, say that that means the jury has to be at least 95% sure that the government have proven the person is guilty. (There is no actual number, but - you see what I mean) "Not guilty" is everything from "actually, the cops did it and set this guy up" to "we're 94% sure this guy did it". | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished They have been charged with breaking the law.. big difference .. they may be found innocent.. I can categorically say that's impossible. These ruffians will never be found innocent. "Innocent" is not a finding in Scots law. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522 is 'innocent' a finding in uk law ... or is it 'not guilty'? Not guilty includes "probably did it but the government haven't entirely proven it". (I'm not familiar enough with Scots law, which is at issue here, to comment on the intersection between not guilty and not proven) But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally. then it must also be impossible in uk law This will be tried under Scots law. In criminal law England and Wales are separate from Scots and all are separate from NI. I'm not aware of "innocent" as a finding under common law (UK, most English speaking countries, etc - Scots is a civil/common law hybrid) what i'm aluding to is that just like uk law, scots law also has 'not guilty'. if you are asserting that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent that i'm just asking what your interpretation of 'not guilty' actually is. Guilty means proven to the standard required in the particular court. Not guilty means everything else, from "probably guilty but not quite enough evidence" through to "clearly innocent". They will never be proven innocent. so you're saying so 'not guilty' means 'maybe guilty, we don't really know' .... interesting concept Yes. In criminal law people need to be found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". For the sake of argument, say that that means the jury has to be at least 95% sure that the government have proven the person is guilty. (There is no actual number, but - you see what I mean) "Not guilty" is everything from "actually, the cops did it and set this guy up" to "we're 94% sure this guy did it"." thanks for elucidating | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If they are charged, tried and found guilty they should be given the punishment the offence warrants. Thats the way the law works, you're guilty if found to be so by due process and 12 good men and true. Unlike the court of public opinion, in which it appears you're guilty even if you've never been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Winston While I’m not a fan of the court of public opinion, in this case where we have very clear video of someone being grabbed and thrown to the floor, I’ll let it slide " You missed the point I was making. I'll let it slide.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If they are charged, tried and found guilty they should be given the punishment the offence warrants. Thats the way the law works, you're guilty if found to be so by due process and 12 good men and true. Unlike the court of public opinion, in which it appears you're guilty even if you've never been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Winston It's their opinion and they'd hang anyone by it .... Saves being wrong I guess. " I'd hate to be in the Dock with a few of this lot ^^^ on the jury. Thinking about it, I'd have been locked up long before I was ever charged.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If they are charged, tried and found guilty they should be given the punishment the offence warrants. Thats the way the law works, you're guilty if found to be so by due process and 12 good men and true. Unlike the court of public opinion, in which it appears you're guilty even if you've never been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Winston Agreed entirely." And Andrew has not been convicted of any crime so the same logic applies... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"This guy could of been a sewicide bommer Who knows what he was shouting under his breath.. Those guys charged may be proven to be heroes.. " Prince Andrew could have been a suicide bomber... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"This guy could of been a sewicide bommer Who knows what he was shouting under his breath.. Those guys charged may be proven to be heroes.. " And if he was, the guys jumping him could have caused detonation and killed dozens in the crowd! They would not be heroes they would be massively stupid and dead themselves... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If they are charged, tried and found guilty they should be given the punishment the offence warrants. Thats the way the law works, you're guilty if found to be so by due process and 12 good men and true. Unlike the court of public opinion, in which it appears you're guilty even if you've never been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Winston Agreed entirely. And Andrew has not been convicted of any crime so the same logic applies..." Speculation is not forbidden under UK law. Not even Scots law. If my beliefs or words carry any real consequences, I'll be very surprised. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The two who assaulted him were breaking those very same laws that gave the heckler the right to heckle. Personally I hope the Thugs get a long and we’ll deserved time at her majesties pleasure " His majesty's pleasure? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"This guy could of been a sewicide bommer Who knows what he was shouting under his breath.. Those guys charged may be proven to be heroes.. " They could have knitted a jumper before anyone could stop them. Think of the children | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Heckler was within the rights of the law to show his displeasure at a known sex offender…time and place, perhaps. But since he’s now been ostracised and will spend the rest of his days out of public living off the publics purse what other time and place was there? The two who assaulted him were breaking those very same laws that gave the heckler the right to heckle. Personally I hope the Thugs get a long and we’ll deserved time at her majesties pleasure " Who was the known sex offender they were heckling? Winston | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"This guy could of been a sewicide bommer Who knows what he was shouting under his breath.. Those guys charged may be proven to be heroes.. " By that logic I could deck pretty much anyone on the basis they might be a suicide bomber  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
