FabSwingers.com forum: Prince Andrew Heckler -Men Charged

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

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?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is nonce sense, Tom.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This is nonce sense, Tom."

Off on holiday to the Paedoph Isles next year?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford

Was not the right time or place so no medal!x

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

[Removed by poster at 02/10/22 13:31:10]

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

I'm not aware of what level of force was used Tom. Any level is unacceptable but I am in a way glad that they challenged such behaviour at funeral and i'm also glad that the heckler demonstrated that public feeling will not abate over this as long as Andrew is in the public eye.

Thanks to all of them I say. Not Andrew tho.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *instonandLadyAstorCouple
over a year ago

Not where we seem to be...

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Link please?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Two members of the public assaulted someone.

In accordance with the rule of law, they are facing the criminal procedure and potential consequences that attaches to that breach of the law.

By taking action against these ruffians, the police uphold their duty to the King's peace.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *tylebender03Man
over a year ago

Manchester

They should be charged, the heckler shouted ‘dirty old man’ that doesn’t give you the right to put hands on someone. Wresting someone to the ground in the street is extremely dangerous, bang your head on concrete and bad things can happen

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *instonandLadyAstorCouple
over a year ago

Not where we seem to be...

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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.

So people can assault other people when they're offended?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *an4funMan
over a year ago

london

"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."

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Give the bootlickers their time at his majesty's pleasure, which I'm sure they'll enjoy - right?

Don't give the heckler a medal; give him his freedom, as we all are meant to have.

You know what they say: if you don't want to be heckled for using mummy's power and influence to get off the hook for sexual abuse..

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

What if he had a gun ?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"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 ?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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.

If a nonce turns up at my mothers funeral you best believe that is the time and place to call them out.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What if he had a gun ?"

Then I doubt he’d have been shouting anything.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What if he had a gun ?"

What if he had a pineapple

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"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 ?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Or he could have had a knife

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Or he could have had a knife "

You call that a knife?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

For all we knew this man could of been an assassin

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"For all we knew this man could of been an assassin "

He could be a baker. What if he had cake?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *oan of DArcCouple
over a year ago

Glasgow

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

"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..

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford

"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.

Agree with this x

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Back to the OP

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

This will be like the Coulson 5.

Aquitted by a jury ...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

I am no lover of Andrew but he has not been on trial for anything..

Guilty until proved innocent or the other way round.. ?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

They broke the law so I am guessing they should be punished

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *odgerMooreMan
over a year ago

Carlisle

"Or he could have had a knife "

Id have disarmed him with my croissant !!!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

vigilantes are violent criminals .... lock them up

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Ok back to the OP

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

"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..

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Back to the moderator..

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Back to the OP. Lock up the violent thugs.

If we all went around hitting people we disagreed with the forums would be a bloodbath.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"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.. "

If they get found guilty of breaking the law then they should be punished

Did you see them manhandle the man Tom?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Assault is assault..no matter how or where it happened

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *revaunanceCouple
over a year ago

Exeter

In summary... The heckler called the Prince a sick old man. Two people then wrestled him to the ground. On face value this would appear to be an overreaction.

However, the moment they placed their hands on him they were at risk of being charged with assault, no matter what their intentions were.

The thing is, our views on here are not fully informed so we should reserve judgement until the defendants have been to court, assuming that it gets that far. Only then will the full facts be made public and mitigations and motivations will be made clear.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

"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'?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *instonandLadyAstorCouple
over a year ago

Not where we seem to be...

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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

"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'?

But "innocent" is frankly impossible, procedurally."

then it must also be impossible in uk law

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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'?

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)

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

"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'?

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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Would't / Couldn't ?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

with an n in it.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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'?

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)

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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

"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'?

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)

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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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'?

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)

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".

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

"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'?

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)

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.

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *instonandLadyAstorCouple
over a year ago

Not where we seem to be...

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *iquidgelMan
over a year ago

gosport

too many opinions from too many people who don't no any of the evidence?.

leave it to the police it's there job

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *instonandLadyAstorCouple
over a year ago

Not where we seem to be...

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

"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...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

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..

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

"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...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

"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...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *eroLondonMan
over a year ago

Covent Garden

[Removed by poster at 02/10/22 15:41:03]

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"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?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
over a year ago

nearby

No rich mum handing out £12 mill of tax payers money so they don’t have to go to court

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *instonandLadyAstorCouple
over a year ago

Not where we seem to be...

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ohn KanakaMan
over a year ago

Not all that North of North London

"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

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately