JonnyF

It's not a conspiracy theory. He died in custody. That is an indisptable fact. Even if you believe he comitted suicide that is a huge red flag against the New York authorities. Why would we have confidence to send a Prince over to a system that has proved itself utterly incompetent in keeping alive high profile defendants awaiting trial in the very same case?

So the results are in. Massive shock as the Swedes made their feelings known about the uncontrolled immigration allowed by the previous government by voting in the right wing parties. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62908902 More bad news for the EU.

Like I said, it's an imperfect system. One of the imperfections is that you are beholden to luck in some ways as to the nature of who gets the number 1 spot. I mean, if Harry had been first born he may have been next. Fortunately it will be William and I suspect his sons will be raised to be decent human beings as well. But again, look at the alternative. Biden was elected and look at the embarrassment he has become. Just because they are voted in and can be removed, doesn't mean you get decent people. Look at Blair and his war crimes. Using another system he could well end up as our Head of State. Canada would probably have Trudeau and his WEF tripe.

It's an imperfect system no doubt. However, just like Democracy being imperfect, it's better than the other forms of government IMO. If we were a Republic there's every chance we'd end up with someone like Blair as President. Look at France with Macron. The US with Biden for gods sake. Is that any better? I also agree that shutting down sport was inappropriate. But I don't believe that the decision of the family. That was down to the broadcasters, the Premier League, the BBB of C etc. I mean, the rugby and the cricket was still on, very weird. I was back in the UK last week for a short holiday and was looking forward to the PL games, Shield vs Marshall etc. so I was annoyed when it was all cancelled. But I don't believe the Queen would have supported that. Apart from the sport, things were pretty normal, pubs and clubs open. The TV coverage was OTT but again that was down to the broadcasters, not an edict from the family. I certainly don't idolize them as individuals either. I had an awful lot of respect for the Queen, Charles is OK when he's not lecturing on the climate, Anne is OK, I like William and Kate, not a fan of Andrew, have disdain for Meghan's husband. But on the whole they perform a function and I do believe that the scenes of the funeral, the pomp etc. will be a positive image for the country. Certainly better than anything else coming out of the place right now. I also believe they pay for themselves in terms of revenue generated but I think those numbers are difficult to quantify. I genuinely believe that most of the rest of the world looks upon us with a degree of envy compared to what those countries have in place. I know here in Thailand they have a great interest in our Royal family and I get asked about it a lot by colleagues in the office, they always have questions about which one is my favourite etc. In contrast, they mock Trump and Biden. Never even heard of Macron.

People settle out of court all the times, for various reasons. He made no admission of guilt. Maybe you are a tad biased against the British Monarchy? I know it's a bugbear for some that not every country can have such rich history and traditions...

Sounds like Salem in 1692. No need for proof, no need for due process - just tarnish their name and punish because "he looks guilty".

The court case.

No, that was to settle out of court and avoid negative press. He never admitted guilt.

He never admitted guilt.

But what evidence do you have that a crime was committed? Link to all the evidence please.

Sexual exploitation? ???? Please provide a link to the evidence of this sexual exploitation. The only evidence I can see of exploitation was when Andrew was exploited for his lack of good judgement to the tune of 12 million quid. Link to said exploitation below. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60667111

Paid sex? Could you provide a link to the evidence of this please.

Trafficked? ???? The only traffic she was involved in was Belgravia rush hour from the back of a chauffeur driven Limo.

Allegedly. More likely is she was a well paid escort operating under her own free will and living the life of riley. I know which theory I find most likely.

It would appear that the Swedes are also not huge fans of the failed policies of clueless, left wing governments. https://www.dw.com/en/swedens-election-the-astonishing-rise-of-the-right-wing-sweden-democrats/a-63100694

The alleged incident that we were discussing (when she was 17) occurred in London, which is in the UK. I am sure you are aware of the legal precedent, Innocent until proven guilty.

Do you have any idea of the wealth of the Royal family? That's like you paying 50 quid. Of someone else's money ????. Of course he's going to pay it. That's exactly why she accused him. Like taking candy from a baby.

A tricky situation. Obviously the minimum wage is still very low, but raising it too much leads to inflation as costs are inevitably passed on to the consumer, so people like poor pensioners or workers already earning slightly above the new minimum wage end up paying more for necessities even though they are not benefitting from the increase in salary.

You'd have to ask him. If I had to guess, I suspect he didn't want a lengthy court case with lurid, sensationalist, salacious stories (quite possibly false or at least exaggerated) of him having sex with a "high class" escort being splashed on the front page of the newspapers during the final year of his mother's life. I'm sure many on this forum have had some wild, yet perfectly legal nights out here in Thailand that they wouldn't necessarily want on the front page of the national newspapers for their friends/family to see.

I understand the law, and her nationality has nothing to do with it. The alleged offence took place in the UK where the legal age of consent is 16. She doesn't take American laws with her around the world to implement in her country of choice. Allegedly trafficked for sex. Never proven in a court of law. Many, myself included believe that she was a fully cooperative participant who later saw an opportunity to make millions of pounds by fleecing a Royal by pretending she was trafficked when in fact she was working as a high class escort and was by her own admission, helping to recruit other girls. Either way, she was over legal age of consent when the alleged event took place and Andrew was never accused or convicted of having underage sex so calling him a nonce is inaccurate.

True, but on the bright side at least it would be a reminder on both the domestic and international scene of how despised the Thai military goons are by the Thai people, and that they stole power via the barrel of a gun.

He was never accused of having sex with underage girls, because by her own admission she was 17 years old at the time and the legal age of consent in the location that the alleged event took place is 16 years old.

Accusing someone of having underage sex with a 17 year old in England where the age of consent is 16 is laughable. It’s like accusing someone who is 19 years of buying alcohol illegally when the minimum age is 18. I could accuse you of being a 300 year old space alien. Then file it with the court. Does that make you a 300 year old space Alien? People make accusations all the time for various reasons. Guilt in a court of law means something. Not an accusation by a self confessed sex trafficking prostitute who claims it’s nothing to do with the money before swiftly dropping all charges for a few million quid.

A good decision by King Charles. Next, strip Harry and Meghan of all their titles and cut them off financially. That would garner even more support from the public. I suspect that is on the cards anyway, but he is waiting for Harry's memoirs to be published so that everyone can see his actions were warranted and a result of Harry's betrayal of his loving family rather than the usual accusations of racism, sexism, gingerism or whetever else those two charlatans can invent to attempt to portay themselves as victims.

I didn't see it, but I just watched it. Looked accidental to me, I highly doubt he would do that on purpose in front of the world's cameras. The fact remains though, he has never been proven guilty of underage sex (or even accused of it in any legal sense to my knowledge) so referring to him as a nonce is inappropriate and potentially defamatory. I'm surprised it is allowed on here to be honest. The only thing Guifree won was some money from someone who didn't want his name dragged through the mud at a time that his mother was very close to her death. She was quite happy to forgo justice in a court of law for some quick cash, although what do you expect from a self confessed sex trafficker and prostitute? Believe her if you wish to, I do not. As far as I can see, Andrew is potentially 'guilty' of paying a prostitute for sex, nothing else. As for Thai law, no threat from me. Just friendly advice to read up on it.