JonnyF

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.

Addressing each point in turn. 1. I am not sure why you refer to Andrew as a 'nonce' when he hasn't even been accused of doing anything untoward with underage girls, let alone convicted of such a crime. 2. In jail for what crime? Having paid, consensual sex with someone of legal age? It would appear that it is YOUR legal credentials that are somewhat lacking. 3. Given the laws here in Thailand, I would be very careful if I were you.

Once again you are trying to use language to divert from the real issue. Any protest against one of your groups is "hate speech", yet any protest aginst groups you dislike is "freedom of expression".

You appear unable to distinguish between the concept of freedom of expression, and the specific groups being protested against on this particular occasion. You cannot support freedom of expression for causes you support (minorities), and oppose it for groups you do not support (the Monarchy). You either have it for all, or for none.

You reap what you sow. You wanted it when it suited your agenda. You'll have to live with it when it doesn't.

Andrew was accused of having paid, consensual sex with a girl of legal age. He was not convicted of anything. The woman he had sex with is a self confessed procurer of girls for prostitution. I don't see you defending the right to protest when it is your pet projects that are being protested against. You want to ban protests against things you support while allowing protests against things you don't like. It is hypocritical in the extreme. You need to choose a position and stick to it. Either you support freedom of expression or you do not.

Once again you are unable to explain why you support freedom of expression in certain cases (where you agree with the opinion being expressed) and yet support curtailing that expression in cases where you do not agree with the opinion being expressed. Therefore, you resort to weak attempts at humour.