JonnyF

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.

Not at all. It's always amusing to see someone's hypocrisy exposed and then posting glib replies to avoid addressing the issues raised.

And yet someone who is white, male and straight is not afforded the same level of protection against offense. If I were a young white male from a poor working class background, struggling at school and maybe being raised in a single parent family I dare say I might find this offensive, openly displayed on a London street. And yet I don't see the creator being arrested. Like I said, it depends on which group is currently in favour and right now following the death of the great Queen Elizabeth, the police are on the side of the monarchists. So our lovely Scottish friend heckling Andrew was bang out of luck on this occasion. He chose the wrong group to insult at the wrong time. He'd be better advised to insult white people at a BLM parade. The police would be taking the knee to him.

Not only royalty. Say anything negative about a host of specially selected groups (currently BLM, LGBTQ+, Muslims etc.) and you face arrest. It's open season on other groups of course. It just depends on whether your group is currently one of the 'protected' groups. In the current climate following the death of our great Queen, it seems that royalists are now one of the protected groups. That's the nature of arbitrary policing policies.

It's pathetic isn't it. What happened to freedom of expression? Unfortunately, the trend has been set where people are going to be arrested for causing offence and hurting other people's feelings. Therefore, if that is the way forward (I wish it wasn't) then it must work both ways. If it's OK to arrest someone for upsetting someone at a pride march or tweeting something that the LGBT squad don't like, then it must also be acceptable to arrest someone who upsets a staunch monarchist. People never like it when an environment they helped to create is then used against them.

There is a time and a place for everything. Heckling a man who is attending his mother's funeral is an incredibly low thing to do. Besides, the money grabber Guiffre was of legal age when she claims to have had consenual sex with Andrew for money, and herself admitted to help traffick other girls for sexual purposes.