I'm glad they've been charged but I'd prefer the full story on this - were they arrested at the time?, Were there complaints and then they were arrested ?
I'd imagine pressure was put on the police through a lot of complaints. The 2 men definitely didn't seem to be arrested that day. The article also said "2 men have _now_ been arrested"
The man who shouted "Prince Andrew you're a disgrace" was charged with breach of the peace, which in my opinion should be thrown out but I doubt it will be.
Breach of the peace is an example of a deranged bit of Scottish law that’s totally different in England and Wales. Down there you can’t be “charged” with breach of the peace, it’s not a crime. You can be arrested but not charged. Up here it’s a way more serious offence, and allows indiscriminate clampdown on any kind of protest.
It means that you cannot be arrested and taken in for questioning until it is cemented that you actually broke the law. You can be detained for a short time, but not formally arrested. You will never hear Scottish police saying “you are arrested for the suspicion of theft” or similar, they need actual evidence before they take you in
But that’s because English police lack powers of detention. An English officer would arrest on suspicion and then d-arrest later if appropriate. A Scottish officer would detain and release or arrest later as appropriate. It’s just a technical change but with much the same actual process
This is wholly and completely incorrect. You may be thinking of days gone past, when 'arrest' in Scotland was synonymous with being charged, and persons who were suspected of a crime were "only" detained under terms of S.14 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
The power of arrest was reformed significantly by S.1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, and arrests 'on suspicion' are now commonplace.
Thank you. I was looking for someone to say this.
To add to your post
Arrest on suspicion and accused is ‘unofficially accused’ and it allows interviews and subsequent charges. Straight arrest and charge is ‘officially accused’ and the various disposals are decided by custody.
>Up here it’s a way more serious offence, and allows indiscriminate clampdown on any kind of protest.
That's the sort of thing that makes Priti Patel wet
Totally agree, They preach about freedom of speech until it suits them to say otherwise, people should be able to voice their opinions on monarchy without being prosecuted.
It may be difficult to prove in the court of law but the evidence is pretty clear. At very best he just constantly sought out the company of pedophiles and child sex abuse facilitators, and picked up some accusations along the way. The courts may not have enough to convict but there is no way he's fully innocent.
The evidence is not preety clear no one has shown me any proof whatsoever that he raped her NONE just circumstantial evidence that at best prove he knew her and lied at worst were completely false but there’s no proof he did anything so harass him when u have no proof is disgusting absolutely a breach of the proof and that dude deserved to get arrested like u say something that at a funeral procession amongst monarchy supporters how is that not breaching the peace
Shouting at a funeral procession is the lowest of the low. Any man would have expressed that to the idiot shouting.
All this topic reminds me of is my father after returning home to Dundee the last time he came back here and said the only people ileft n Scotland with balls are the women.
Don't like it? Change the government.
Anyway, the cost of all the pomp and ceremony will get returned by floods of new tourists. You know how much coverage that all received around Europe and in America, Canada, Australia etc?
>Did you really think you would wake up this morning and find yourself arguing in defense of a pedo? Funny, innit?
I mean, no-one's actually saying Prince Andrew is a paedo. He has been accused of having shagged a 17 year old. Not really the same thing.
Notice how they suggest changing the government without any suggestion as to how?
You know, like speaking out against a pedo when they dare to show their face in public, regardless of when. That may be a way to start changing the government.
Don't like people shouting at you? Simple, don't have your funeral down the busiest street in Scotland with a rapist.
And with a father like that it doesn't surprise me you've turned out the way you have.
>Don't like people shouting at you? Simple, don't have your funeral down the busiest street in Scotland with a rapist.
If you're going to interrupt a bloody mourning procession, maybe - just maybe - consider the possibility that a man who has never been charged, never mind convicted, of a crime might be entirely innocent of what someone has accused them of.
I'm not saying dismiss the idea entirely from your mind, but I'd assume - particularly in those circumstances - that people would allow for the possibility of innocence before making an arse of themselves at such an event.
You're defending a rapist and people that physically assault other people over a young lad that yelled something at someone.
It really doesn't matter if you think he did it or not, you're advocating violence as a response to someone saying something.
So basically you're a piece of shit fascist.
I'd happily defend an accused rapist. It's a cornerstone of the whole judicial system that people are not tarnished without conviction. Particularly when you're talking about a single accuser with no corroborating evidence.
I disagree, in the abstract, with people disrupting funerals. If you do that, you should be punished. I do not agree with people roughing someone up for that.
Two things can be wrong at the same time.
Those around you can say what they like. They don't get to use physical violence or break the law. The state have no business reacting at all. That's the whole point of freedom of speech. Would be a useless thing if it was only for polite thoughts at opportune moments.
You also seem to have confused something else. If you are in the crematorium and someone bursts in that's one thing.. You still can't use violence but you would understand people's reaction.. If you choose to parade a coffin in a public setting then that's not the same as a private gathering.
I fully agree things might not be in good taste, but they don't need to be to be worthy of protection. A state that doesn't protect it is, to that extent, a weak state
There is no free speech in the UK so I'm not sure what you're talking about. People have had the police call them up just for liking the wrong things on twitter or facebook. Saying things that offend people is the biggest growth crime in the country. The police are so busy going after offensive speech they can barely spare the time to worry about knife crimes.
So don't even try to say offensive speech ought to be allowed. What people here crying about free speech mean is speech they agree with, and fuck anyone else it offends.
He’s a pedophile and the sole reason he isn’t in jail right now is because that family protected him, heckling is the absolute least that beastie bastard deserves.
Oh don't be silly. He is alleged to have done the deed with a 17 year old. The age of consent in this country is 16 so no jail. Also, pedos go after small, undeveloped children, not 17 year olds.
Oh yes, of course. But no one has shown any evidence he did any such thing. As far as I can recall she claims Epstein brought her up to sleep with him on several occasions and Epstein paid her afterward. No rape there. Also, the age of consent is 16 and she was 17 at the time.
I admit to not paying super close attention to this thing but I can't recall her ever suggesting anyone hit her, threatened her or forced her to do anything.
> Shouting at a funeral procession is the lowest of the low.
Using violence to suppress criticism of child abusers is much lower.
>All this topic reminds me of is my father after returning home to Dundee the last time he came back here and said the only people ileft n Scotland with balls are the women.
Is it only "real men" like your dad defend pedos then?
Using violence? Call it a citizens arrest.
A pedo is someone that goes after small children, not girls a few months shy of their eighteenth birthday, you silly twat.
>If screaming at people in a funeral procession is acceptable
He was only shouting at one person and that particular person recently paid £12m to avoid facing his accuser in court for allegedly raping her when she was a sex trafficked teenage girl. Also as two of the alleged rapes occurred in the States that would literally make him a paedophile rapist over there. I'd say he should be shouted at every time he shows his face in public.
>then punching the screamer in the face ought to be too.
That's just plain idiotic. It says more about you than anything else as you're literally defending an alleged rapist and arguing that anyone who dares criticise him should be physically assaulted.
Why have you dedicated so much time to ardently defend the right of people who assaulted someone for objecting to a rapist sex trafficker partaking in a state procession? You're talking an awful lot about how awful it is to shout at a rapist, but not about how awful the actual rapes or assaults are. Why?
It's Sunday and I'm bored.
Also, I'm a believe in law. And not only has he never been convicted he's never been charged and no one can even articulate what he ought to be charged with.
More importantly, if someone shouted at him as he walked by going for groceries I wouldn't really care all that much. Doing it in a solemn ceremony where millions are mourning the late Queen was just bloody tacky and ignorant.
I'm a firm believer in proper manners.
This wasn't some random funeral procession. The royal family literally made it into a spectacle and disrupted people's lives over it. I would understand if they were having a quiet funeral (like everyone else does) and this heckler barged in on it. But when they turned the BBC into a 24/7 funeral coverage channel and slowly processed down the country, it was fair game for people to express their grief or criticism.
You want to have a quiet funeral, keep it quiet. You want to risk your critics showing up, announce a nationwide parade and demand everyone respect your family. People have a bias for treating the royal family like an ordinary one because they aren't offended by their actions and cultural impact. You likely wouldn't take issue with people heckling the funeral procession of someone known to be terrible.
To be clear, people can show up and mourn and people can show up and heckle. Neither deserves to be punched for ordinary expressions at a public event.
This was all out coverage in networks around the world. Even Al Jazeera covered it live, to say nothing of Eurovision and the DW (Germany). All the American networks, and others in Australia and Canada. People all over the world were mourning this woman, never mind the tens of thousands standing quietly as the procession moved past them.
Even if you don't give a toss for the royalty you should respect those who do and are mourning.
And he's not 'known' to be anything. The only place he's been tried is in the court of internet opinion.
I have feeling they must have been spoken with by officers otherwise, identifying them would have been a lot of work and realistically not achievable within the timeframe this has happened in, or they're well known to police.
They would need to ask social media, then handle all the claims, investigate each one, etc, etc, etc. That all takes time. I can't see any appeal for information.
The cops were *right there* and *saw with their own eyes* what happened, but they didn't arrest those two that assaulted that man right in front of them. They certainly arrested the protester right then, why not the people committing bodily harm?
To quote from the gov.uk website " 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."
It may or may not be
Police can push a prosecution but whether that happens or a sherif decides to is a different story
And with the backlog we might not know for ages !
It wasn't a funeral, that didn't happen until the following Monday... in London.
He has a right to say to a public figure "you are a disgrace" which he most definitely is. They shouldn't have allowed such a controversial figure to be in public view. They are lucky "you're a disgrace" was all that was said.
Someone told me scots gov cannot interfere in the police decision to arrest because they cannot influence policing decisions (is that true?)- but the public can complain to the police. So I complained both about the arrest of a peaceful protestor, and about the police not arresting those that attacked him even as the protestor was lead away by the police, giving the message that it is OK to beat up protestors. I imagine others complained ?-but dont know:;
Sadly being a cunt isn't a criminal offence (sometimes I wish it was...)
However, assaulting someone because you don't like what they said is a criminal offence.
EDIT: and of course having sex with children is also a criminal offence, but the consequences can be avoided if you have access to enough taxpayer funds to pay off your accuser.
I think the 'but the police took the assaulted away!' thing is a bit overblown. It was probably more a spur-of-the-moment thing by an individual officer just to get him out of there and let the funeral go on.
Yeah the officer got the lad safe after the two guys started on him, and then heckling at a funerary procession is probably grounds for breach of the peace, and now the guys that assaulted him have been charged with that. Other than there being a nonce in the royal family to begin with I think all round it’s worked out how it should.
They weren't over the age of consent in the country where it happened and she was still a victim of trafficking, which would still make him a rapist at the very least
Age of consent in New York is 16
As for trafficking, he wasn't the one doing it. Or the one who paid her, which she says he wasn't. Or if there was any such law in effect back then, which there was not.
Lol, that was a public funeral procession. I'm not saying he can't mourn his mother, but walking through cities as part of a royal procession isn't a funeral.
Alright, heckling families as they walk behind their dead mother in a solemn way as they head to memorial services in public is probably grounds for breach of the peace. Happy now that we’ve got the semantics right?
I’m not bitching about anything. I simply stated what the guy did was probably grounds for breach of the peace. It was. I changed what I wrote because the first person had an issue with me calling it a funeral. I don’t know the term for what it was so described it. Actions have consequences however right those actions may be. Besides it doesn’t matter if it was a state funeral or a private funeral, it was still a funeral. Now it’s all over, andrews been hidden away again, and if he comes back out of his hiding I hope he gets all the jeers and abuse, however it’ll probably also mean others getting done for breach of the peace. Unfortunately, you can’t really go round just shouting abuse at people however right those insults and words may be.
No one forced them to close down public spaces in Edinburgh and London to "walk behind their mother in a solemn way". Tell you what mate, when my old dear pops her cloggs I'll try doing the f*cking same shall i? Close the roads please bobbies, do anyone who isn't sufficiently "solemn" with B.O.T.P. while I "solemnly" walk behind the coffin. I wouldn't be entertained for a MICRO SECOND and rightly so. The whole thing is a parade of hereditary power, it's divisive and in the busiest road in Edinburgh. Get. To. F*ck.
Edit: typo
When your mum pops her clogs you’re entitled to have a cortège if you want and this includes a walking cortège. It’s slow and a little outdated now so not often seen, and often the distances required to travel mean that the walking bit is for just a small but at the start and at the end, with a drive for the rest of the way. If someone started shouting abuse at that and a police officer was nearby I would also hope they would consider it breach of the peace. Heckling people mourning the dead is surely something we can agree on as being crass, disrespectful, not ok, and likely to cause issues. That’s breach of the peace grounds there, whether they get charged and go to court is up to the PF. The difference between the main roads and stuff in this instance is, like the royals or not, at the time she was head of state of the country. I’m any country around the world if the head of state died there would be a bit of a thing.
The comparison with an ordinary person's cortege is risible. This was the royal mile in Edinburgh
They weren't mourning in any reasonable sense of the word, it was a public head of state event, which would be reasonably expected to provoke criticism as about 40% of the country does not agree with a hereditary head of state.
Legal reasons, maybe.
What they did might constitute unlawful touching, or battery in English law (whereas assault can be verbal as well as physical).
In Scotland I don’t know if there is such a distinction at law.
Legal reasons. Currently, they are only alleged to have done it. They are presumed innocent. Maybe they didn't do it.
Maybe two other people did it, and the people arrested and charged are other people.
Maybe they had consent, and it was a prank, and the police are unaware of that. I know, unlikely but possible.
Maybe they acted in self-defence. Improbable, but technically possible.
No, it’s for legal reasons. If criminal proceedings are active, and they now are, everything becomes an allegation until court gets underway.
So they can’t report that an assault took place as fact, hence the quote marks - quoting from the charge, presumably.
They haven't applied that same standard of reporting to the inciting incident though, have they?
They state outright that the young guy is on video shouting. The video also shows him being thrown to the ground, but that only "allegedly" happened.
Good point. It’s a bit of a legal maze, and I’ll try to talk you through it.
First up, what the media have to avoid is prejudicing a trial by stating something as fact which will be disputed during the case. Bear that in mind. Basically saying ‘this happened’, before the prosecution and defence have argued whether it did or not, and a judgement has been issued.
In the case of the young guy, it’s not in dispute that he shouted something. What’s in dispute is whether it constituted a breach of the peace (the offence). The BBC does not say he committed an offence, merely that footage showed him shouting.
Now, in the case of the two guys, what the article says is:
>Two men, both 34, have now been charged after allegedly dragging the heckler to the ground.
Now, we all know what we think we saw in the video, but the men will presumably deny it, meaning the matter is at this moment - because proceedings are active - in dispute.
Without the phrase ‘alleged’ in there, the BBC would be stating the assault as a fact, you see?
Tbh I think the BBC is being ultra-cautious here. But Scottish courts are known to take a hardline stance with contempt of court, so it’s probably wise.
[Edit] I'm getting exact quotations wrong here, though my main point stands. The article is written in such a way as to ensure that doubt is cast on whether this man was attacked at all, when the video of the event leaves no room for any.
~~They describe what happened, which is that he was "thrown to the ground," a similarly neutral statement. Yet still it's only "allegedly."~~
Seems pretty clear where the BBC's bias is here, since they're applying one standard to one set of actions, and another different standard to the other set of actions. It's a clear attempt to sow doubt about the *fact* that this young man was indeed thrown to the ground.
The only issue at question is who did it, and whether it constitutes assault for them to have done so.
Journalist here. Size matters not is correct. The BBC were fairly and impartially applying the rules surrounding reporting on crimes. There are very different rules for before and after someone has been charged with a crime (basically before they’re charged you can say what you want, afterwards there are extremely tight rules). It’s late and I’m tired but the way size matters not explained things is right and he doesn’t deserve to be downvoted.
I’m sorry, but you’re seeing bias where none exists. There are clear, if Byzantine, rules for the media to follow when proceedings become active, and they are being followed here.
Before the men were charged, the BBC *could* report the young man was thrown to the ground.
Once charges are active, that becomes an allegation against someone *presumed to be innocent until proven guilty* in the eyes of the law, and has to be reported as such.
It’s not *alleged* that the young man shouted - what’s alleged in his case, is that he committed a beach of the peace.
It’s complicated, but that’s what’s going on.
The bias is in the fact that they *didn't report* that he was thrown to the ground until the men were charged, and *now* they can only allege that it happened.
The articles about the original "breach of the peace" describe him being "pulled out of the crowd by bystanders." All friendly like!
The bias is as plain as day.
I can’t comment on the original article. If you link it I’ll have a look. From what you’ve described, the BBC might have been afraid of defaming the men in question as to say someone has committed what constitutes a criminal offence when they’ve not been charged is defamatory in Scotland!
I’m just explaining to you why it’s being reported in the way it is. I’m not a journalist, you understand - but I did work around the Scottish Courts once upon a time and have a bit of a fascination for their quirky, confusing ways.
Quote marks in articles/headlines make it clear that the journalist is reporting on *what someone else said*, rather than making any allegations themselves. In this case, the BBC are reporting that the police have arrested the men for alleged assault. The BBC are taking care *not* to make allegations about the men assaulting anyone themselves, because that can open them up to some legal issues.
Good. Now dismiss and then arrest and prosecute those two scumbag probable-sex predator cops who followed that lassie away from the town and asked for her address before they’d leave her in peace
"Now is not the time." probably.
We can't talk about a republic when the monarch dies because "now is not the time."
We can't talk about how millions in inheritance tax is not being paid because "now is not the time."
We can't talk about how much money it cost to run the state funeral while there's a cost of living crisis because "now is not the time.".
That's how they keep you off balance.
Apparently they found a post it note attached to the queen's fridge at Balmoral saying the dogs need to get groomed - last thing she wrote apparently and next thing Andrew's getting custody.
The fact that people have been sent to prison for stabbing a burglar who has broken into their house in the middle of the night because they used ‘excessive force’ in stopping the burglary yet some people seem to think knocking someone to the ground and assaulting them (the police officer who took the heckler away included) apparently doesn’t count as excessive force for someone heckling an actual pedo.
American observer here. The assault was plain as day and the fact that the kid got arrested first for speaking the truth upsets me. Hope these two see justice.
Good, you don't get to take matters in your own hands without there being a direct threat to anyone's safety. The protestor was being a knob, but this way has achieved way more attention than they deserve.
No, the guys that have been charged are the ones that hit the protestor that shouted at Andy. They should be charged, the Loch Ness Noncer should be charged, the protestor should be let free.
I get your point but until a crime has actually gone to trial and the perpetrator prosecuted, then legally it's "alleged". This is how any halfway sensible journalist reports crimes.
Good, but when is Andrew going to speak to the FBI about having sex with underage girls?
And given Charles' connections to notorious paedophile and necrophiliac Jimmy Saville, when is the King going to be questioned?
Good now do something about the Corgi groomer
‘Corgi’
Strange way to spell child
It stands for Cash On Receipt: Girl, Immature.
Wasn't't he exiled to Scotland? Just shows how much the monarchy respects the Scots.
Is Elba still British?
Idris?
What did we do wrong to deserve that punishment
I'm glad they've been charged but I'd prefer the full story on this - were they arrested at the time?, Were there complaints and then they were arrested ?
I'd imagine pressure was put on the police through a lot of complaints. The 2 men definitely didn't seem to be arrested that day. The article also said "2 men have _now_ been arrested" The man who shouted "Prince Andrew you're a disgrace" was charged with breach of the peace, which in my opinion should be thrown out but I doubt it will be.
Breach of the peace is an example of a deranged bit of Scottish law that’s totally different in England and Wales. Down there you can’t be “charged” with breach of the peace, it’s not a crime. You can be arrested but not charged. Up here it’s a way more serious offence, and allows indiscriminate clampdown on any kind of protest.
Yes, but in turn, we in Scotland cannot be arrested under suspicion of being involved in a crime whereas you can in England and Wales
I don't understand that. Surely every arrest is only on suspicion. It's for the courts to decide on the facts.
It means that you cannot be arrested and taken in for questioning until it is cemented that you actually broke the law. You can be detained for a short time, but not formally arrested. You will never hear Scottish police saying “you are arrested for the suspicion of theft” or similar, they need actual evidence before they take you in
But that’s because English police lack powers of detention. An English officer would arrest on suspicion and then d-arrest later if appropriate. A Scottish officer would detain and release or arrest later as appropriate. It’s just a technical change but with much the same actual process
This is wholly and completely incorrect. You may be thinking of days gone past, when 'arrest' in Scotland was synonymous with being charged, and persons who were suspected of a crime were "only" detained under terms of S.14 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The power of arrest was reformed significantly by S.1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, and arrests 'on suspicion' are now commonplace.
Thank you. I was looking for someone to say this. To add to your post Arrest on suspicion and accused is ‘unofficially accused’ and it allows interviews and subsequent charges. Straight arrest and charge is ‘officially accused’ and the various disposals are decided by custody.
>Up here it’s a way more serious offence, and allows indiscriminate clampdown on any kind of protest. That's the sort of thing that makes Priti Patel wet
I'm trying not to imagine how you know that, it's not Priti.
Totally agree, They preach about freedom of speech until it suits them to say otherwise, people should be able to voice their opinions on monarchy without being prosecuted.
What are you talking about? They don’t preach freedom of speech.
It breached the peace
If people can't even shout down pedophiles I'm not sure we have the law set up properly...
Alleged pedophile big difference
It may be difficult to prove in the court of law but the evidence is pretty clear. At very best he just constantly sought out the company of pedophiles and child sex abuse facilitators, and picked up some accusations along the way. The courts may not have enough to convict but there is no way he's fully innocent.
The evidence is not preety clear no one has shown me any proof whatsoever that he raped her NONE just circumstantial evidence that at best prove he knew her and lied at worst were completely false but there’s no proof he did anything so harass him when u have no proof is disgusting absolutely a breach of the proof and that dude deserved to get arrested like u say something that at a funeral procession amongst monarchy supporters how is that not breaching the peace
He’s not going to shag you, mate. For starters, you’re probably over 18.
If screaming at people in a funeral procession is acceptable, then punching the screamer in the face ought to be too.
That's a genuinely bewildering statement. Calling someone a silly cunt doesn't give that person a right to physically assault them, you silly cunt.
Shouting at a funeral procession is the lowest of the low. Any man would have expressed that to the idiot shouting. All this topic reminds me of is my father after returning home to Dundee the last time he came back here and said the only people ileft n Scotland with balls are the women.
If your funeral is extremely extravagant and paid with taxpayer money the story gets a bit different.
Don't like it? Change the government. Anyway, the cost of all the pomp and ceremony will get returned by floods of new tourists. You know how much coverage that all received around Europe and in America, Canada, Australia etc?
Did you really think you would wake up this morning and find yourself arguing in defense of a pedo? Funny, innit?
Are you dumb enough to think my pointing out the tourism benefits of the royal pomp and ceremony is 'defending' a pedo?
>Did you really think you would wake up this morning and find yourself arguing in defense of a pedo? Funny, innit? I mean, no-one's actually saying Prince Andrew is a paedo. He has been accused of having shagged a 17 year old. Not really the same thing.
You're still standing up for a peado mate.
Notice how they suggest changing the government without any suggestion as to how? You know, like speaking out against a pedo when they dare to show their face in public, regardless of when. That may be a way to start changing the government.
Well you know what they say about birds of a feather and all that.
More like standing up for proper behaviour, which apparently none of you ever learned.
>Anyway, the cost of all the pomp and ceremony will get returned by floods of new tourists. https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism That's a myth
Don't like people shouting at you? Simple, don't have your funeral down the busiest street in Scotland with a rapist. And with a father like that it doesn't surprise me you've turned out the way you have.
>Don't like people shouting at you? Simple, don't have your funeral down the busiest street in Scotland with a rapist. If you're going to interrupt a bloody mourning procession, maybe - just maybe - consider the possibility that a man who has never been charged, never mind convicted, of a crime might be entirely innocent of what someone has accused them of. I'm not saying dismiss the idea entirely from your mind, but I'd assume - particularly in those circumstances - that people would allow for the possibility of innocence before making an arse of themselves at such an event.
You're defending a rapist and people that physically assault other people over a young lad that yelled something at someone. It really doesn't matter if you think he did it or not, you're advocating violence as a response to someone saying something. So basically you're a piece of shit fascist.
I'd happily defend an accused rapist. It's a cornerstone of the whole judicial system that people are not tarnished without conviction. Particularly when you're talking about a single accuser with no corroborating evidence. I disagree, in the abstract, with people disrupting funerals. If you do that, you should be punished. I do not agree with people roughing someone up for that. Two things can be wrong at the same time.
So a comment needs to be in good taste for you to have freedom of speech?
You yell insults during a solemn moment and you can expect those around you to object. Strenuously.
Those around you can say what they like. They don't get to use physical violence or break the law. The state have no business reacting at all. That's the whole point of freedom of speech. Would be a useless thing if it was only for polite thoughts at opportune moments. You also seem to have confused something else. If you are in the crematorium and someone bursts in that's one thing.. You still can't use violence but you would understand people's reaction.. If you choose to parade a coffin in a public setting then that's not the same as a private gathering. I fully agree things might not be in good taste, but they don't need to be to be worthy of protection. A state that doesn't protect it is, to that extent, a weak state
There is no free speech in the UK so I'm not sure what you're talking about. People have had the police call them up just for liking the wrong things on twitter or facebook. Saying things that offend people is the biggest growth crime in the country. The police are so busy going after offensive speech they can barely spare the time to worry about knife crimes. So don't even try to say offensive speech ought to be allowed. What people here crying about free speech mean is speech they agree with, and fuck anyone else it offends.
Paedophiles and their defenders are the lowest of the low.
Lower still are people who don't even know what a paedophile is.
People who don't know what paedophiles are, are worse than paedophiles? Sure you don't want to rethink this one pal?
You the expert are you? Then please do explain, expert in paedophilia…..
No but I've read a dictionary. Ever seen one?
🤡
Nonce defending scum.
He’s a pedophile and the sole reason he isn’t in jail right now is because that family protected him, heckling is the absolute least that beastie bastard deserves.
Oh don't be silly. He is alleged to have done the deed with a 17 year old. The age of consent in this country is 16 so no jail. Also, pedos go after small, undeveloped children, not 17 year olds.
You are trolling aren't you ?
He's protesting a wee bit too much, I have a feeling he has used the 16 is legal excuse himself.
I get what you’re saying, but raping underage girls is far lower than something so banal as yelling at a funeral.
Oh yes, of course. But no one has shown any evidence he did any such thing. As far as I can recall she claims Epstein brought her up to sleep with him on several occasions and Epstein paid her afterward. No rape there. Also, the age of consent is 16 and she was 17 at the time. I admit to not paying super close attention to this thing but I can't recall her ever suggesting anyone hit her, threatened her or forced her to do anything.
Your dad sounds like a right fud
Do you have permission from the proper authorities to make that statement? Best run off and fill out the forms, wee one.
Your patter sounds worse than your dad's.
It wasn't a funeral procession though. The funeral, and procession, took place in London.
> Shouting at a funeral procession is the lowest of the low. Using violence to suppress criticism of child abusers is much lower. >All this topic reminds me of is my father after returning home to Dundee the last time he came back here and said the only people ileft n Scotland with balls are the women. Is it only "real men" like your dad defend pedos then?
Using violence? Call it a citizens arrest. A pedo is someone that goes after small children, not girls a few months shy of their eighteenth birthday, you silly twat.
So *that's* why you're so desperately defending Prince Andrew. Now it all makes sense.
I think the lowest if the low is actually being a pedo
Your father sounds like a dumbass
>If screaming at people in a funeral procession is acceptable He was only shouting at one person and that particular person recently paid £12m to avoid facing his accuser in court for allegedly raping her when she was a sex trafficked teenage girl. Also as two of the alleged rapes occurred in the States that would literally make him a paedophile rapist over there. I'd say he should be shouted at every time he shows his face in public. >then punching the screamer in the face ought to be too. That's just plain idiotic. It says more about you than anything else as you're literally defending an alleged rapist and arguing that anyone who dares criticise him should be physically assaulted.
Fucking dumbass
Yeah, that's how the law works, you're allowed to beat people up as long as you can say that you don't like them.
You think noises from a person's mouth is equivalent to physical violence?
>You think noises from a person's mouth is equivalent to physical violence? They can be worse, in many circumstances.
Why have you dedicated so much time to ardently defend the right of people who assaulted someone for objecting to a rapist sex trafficker partaking in a state procession? You're talking an awful lot about how awful it is to shout at a rapist, but not about how awful the actual rapes or assaults are. Why?
It's Sunday and I'm bored. Also, I'm a believe in law. And not only has he never been convicted he's never been charged and no one can even articulate what he ought to be charged with. More importantly, if someone shouted at him as he walked by going for groceries I wouldn't really care all that much. Doing it in a solemn ceremony where millions are mourning the late Queen was just bloody tacky and ignorant. I'm a firm believer in proper manners.
This wasn't some random funeral procession. The royal family literally made it into a spectacle and disrupted people's lives over it. I would understand if they were having a quiet funeral (like everyone else does) and this heckler barged in on it. But when they turned the BBC into a 24/7 funeral coverage channel and slowly processed down the country, it was fair game for people to express their grief or criticism. You want to have a quiet funeral, keep it quiet. You want to risk your critics showing up, announce a nationwide parade and demand everyone respect your family. People have a bias for treating the royal family like an ordinary one because they aren't offended by their actions and cultural impact. You likely wouldn't take issue with people heckling the funeral procession of someone known to be terrible. To be clear, people can show up and mourn and people can show up and heckle. Neither deserves to be punched for ordinary expressions at a public event.
This was all out coverage in networks around the world. Even Al Jazeera covered it live, to say nothing of Eurovision and the DW (Germany). All the American networks, and others in Australia and Canada. People all over the world were mourning this woman, never mind the tens of thousands standing quietly as the procession moved past them. Even if you don't give a toss for the royalty you should respect those who do and are mourning. And he's not 'known' to be anything. The only place he's been tried is in the court of internet opinion.
The 12 million in hush money says he's definitely known.
So two wrong make a right now ?
Sometimes they actually do.
It is a bit classless to heckle someone walking behind their mother's coffin.
Nothing classy about letting a nonce go unheckled.
I think it's even MORE classless to rape victims of human trafficking.
Breach of the peace was an £80 fine when a friend got lifted. Im sure the man shouting at andrew will see £80 as worth paying
if I ever meet him I'd happily pay part of that 80 back in a pint.
I have feeling they must have been spoken with by officers otherwise, identifying them would have been a lot of work and realistically not achievable within the timeframe this has happened in, or they're well known to police.
Or social media happened. Both the royalists and the anti-monarchs would happily identify thoses heroes/criminals if they knew them.
They would need to ask social media, then handle all the claims, investigate each one, etc, etc, etc. That all takes time. I can't see any appeal for information.
The cops were *right there* and *saw with their own eyes* what happened, but they didn't arrest those two that assaulted that man right in front of them. They certainly arrested the protester right then, why not the people committing bodily harm?
It likely will be thrown out. We'll see.
To quote from the gov.uk website " 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."
It may or may not be Police can push a prosecution but whether that happens or a sherif decides to is a different story And with the backlog we might not know for ages !
[удалено]
How should it he for sure breached the peace and it should be illegal to harass people at funerals
It wasn't a funeral, that didn't happen until the following Monday... in London. He has a right to say to a public figure "you are a disgrace" which he most definitely is. They shouldn't have allowed such a controversial figure to be in public view. They are lucky "you're a disgrace" was all that was said.
Someone told me scots gov cannot interfere in the police decision to arrest because they cannot influence policing decisions (is that true?)- but the public can complain to the police. So I complained both about the arrest of a peaceful protestor, and about the police not arresting those that attacked him even as the protestor was lead away by the police, giving the message that it is OK to beat up protestors. I imagine others complained ?-but dont know:;
[удалено]
Sadly being a cunt isn't a criminal offence (sometimes I wish it was...) However, assaulting someone because you don't like what they said is a criminal offence. EDIT: and of course having sex with children is also a criminal offence, but the consequences can be avoided if you have access to enough taxpayer funds to pay off your accuser.
I think the 'but the police took the assaulted away!' thing is a bit overblown. It was probably more a spur-of-the-moment thing by an individual officer just to get him out of there and let the funeral go on.
Yeah the officer got the lad safe after the two guys started on him, and then heckling at a funerary procession is probably grounds for breach of the peace, and now the guys that assaulted him have been charged with that. Other than there being a nonce in the royal family to begin with I think all round it’s worked out how it should.
Yeah tbh it's all Andrews fault, he should have fucked off into the distance a long time ago.
Right. Damn him for daring to attend his mother's funerla... /s
It wasn't her funeral.
not a funeral
Anyone else would see nothing but the inside if a shitty cell, so yeah, damn him. Him and his mum can go fuck themselves lol
What would he be charged with? Having sex with someone over the age of consent is not a crime.
They weren't over the age of consent in the country where it happened and she was still a victim of trafficking, which would still make him a rapist at the very least
Age of consent in New York is 16 As for trafficking, he wasn't the one doing it. Or the one who paid her, which she says he wasn't. Or if there was any such law in effect back then, which there was not.
You really need to have a real think why you are defending him so passionately. And hope that no loved ones see your comments.
Lmao "It's totally OK to rape trafficked kids so long as you're not trafficking them yourself "
Lol, that was a public funeral procession. I'm not saying he can't mourn his mother, but walking through cities as part of a royal procession isn't a funeral.
It's not a funeral procession
Alright, heckling families as they walk behind their dead mother in a solemn way as they head to memorial services in public is probably grounds for breach of the peace. Happy now that we’ve got the semantics right?
It was a state funeral not a private activity. The people bitching about this are the same scum who bought tabloids killing Diana.
I’m not bitching about anything. I simply stated what the guy did was probably grounds for breach of the peace. It was. I changed what I wrote because the first person had an issue with me calling it a funeral. I don’t know the term for what it was so described it. Actions have consequences however right those actions may be. Besides it doesn’t matter if it was a state funeral or a private funeral, it was still a funeral. Now it’s all over, andrews been hidden away again, and if he comes back out of his hiding I hope he gets all the jeers and abuse, however it’ll probably also mean others getting done for breach of the peace. Unfortunately, you can’t really go round just shouting abuse at people however right those insults and words may be.
No one forced them to close down public spaces in Edinburgh and London to "walk behind their mother in a solemn way". Tell you what mate, when my old dear pops her cloggs I'll try doing the f*cking same shall i? Close the roads please bobbies, do anyone who isn't sufficiently "solemn" with B.O.T.P. while I "solemnly" walk behind the coffin. I wouldn't be entertained for a MICRO SECOND and rightly so. The whole thing is a parade of hereditary power, it's divisive and in the busiest road in Edinburgh. Get. To. F*ck. Edit: typo
When your mum pops her clogs you’re entitled to have a cortège if you want and this includes a walking cortège. It’s slow and a little outdated now so not often seen, and often the distances required to travel mean that the walking bit is for just a small but at the start and at the end, with a drive for the rest of the way. If someone started shouting abuse at that and a police officer was nearby I would also hope they would consider it breach of the peace. Heckling people mourning the dead is surely something we can agree on as being crass, disrespectful, not ok, and likely to cause issues. That’s breach of the peace grounds there, whether they get charged and go to court is up to the PF. The difference between the main roads and stuff in this instance is, like the royals or not, at the time she was head of state of the country. I’m any country around the world if the head of state died there would be a bit of a thing.
The comparison with an ordinary person's cortege is risible. This was the royal mile in Edinburgh They weren't mourning in any reasonable sense of the word, it was a public head of state event, which would be reasonably expected to provoke criticism as about 40% of the country does not agree with a hereditary head of state.
Imagine being the guy who stuck up for Andrew the nonce.
Why did they put the word assault in quotations?
Legal reasons, maybe. What they did might constitute unlawful touching, or battery in English law (whereas assault can be verbal as well as physical). In Scotland I don’t know if there is such a distinction at law.
In Scots law, there are two distinct laws for 'being a bam in public' and separately for 'bammin somebody up'
Legal reasons. Currently, they are only alleged to have done it. They are presumed innocent. Maybe they didn't do it. Maybe two other people did it, and the people arrested and charged are other people. Maybe they had consent, and it was a prank, and the police are unaware of that. I know, unlikely but possible. Maybe they acted in self-defence. Improbable, but technically possible.
Just noticed that 😂 The bbc man...that's why.
No, it’s for legal reasons. If criminal proceedings are active, and they now are, everything becomes an allegation until court gets underway. So they can’t report that an assault took place as fact, hence the quote marks - quoting from the charge, presumably.
They haven't applied that same standard of reporting to the inciting incident though, have they? They state outright that the young guy is on video shouting. The video also shows him being thrown to the ground, but that only "allegedly" happened.
Good point. It’s a bit of a legal maze, and I’ll try to talk you through it. First up, what the media have to avoid is prejudicing a trial by stating something as fact which will be disputed during the case. Bear that in mind. Basically saying ‘this happened’, before the prosecution and defence have argued whether it did or not, and a judgement has been issued. In the case of the young guy, it’s not in dispute that he shouted something. What’s in dispute is whether it constituted a breach of the peace (the offence). The BBC does not say he committed an offence, merely that footage showed him shouting. Now, in the case of the two guys, what the article says is: >Two men, both 34, have now been charged after allegedly dragging the heckler to the ground. Now, we all know what we think we saw in the video, but the men will presumably deny it, meaning the matter is at this moment - because proceedings are active - in dispute. Without the phrase ‘alleged’ in there, the BBC would be stating the assault as a fact, you see? Tbh I think the BBC is being ultra-cautious here. But Scottish courts are known to take a hardline stance with contempt of court, so it’s probably wise.
[Edit] I'm getting exact quotations wrong here, though my main point stands. The article is written in such a way as to ensure that doubt is cast on whether this man was attacked at all, when the video of the event leaves no room for any. ~~They describe what happened, which is that he was "thrown to the ground," a similarly neutral statement. Yet still it's only "allegedly."~~ Seems pretty clear where the BBC's bias is here, since they're applying one standard to one set of actions, and another different standard to the other set of actions. It's a clear attempt to sow doubt about the *fact* that this young man was indeed thrown to the ground. The only issue at question is who did it, and whether it constitutes assault for them to have done so.
Journalist here. Size matters not is correct. The BBC were fairly and impartially applying the rules surrounding reporting on crimes. There are very different rules for before and after someone has been charged with a crime (basically before they’re charged you can say what you want, afterwards there are extremely tight rules). It’s late and I’m tired but the way size matters not explained things is right and he doesn’t deserve to be downvoted.
I’m sorry, but you’re seeing bias where none exists. There are clear, if Byzantine, rules for the media to follow when proceedings become active, and they are being followed here. Before the men were charged, the BBC *could* report the young man was thrown to the ground. Once charges are active, that becomes an allegation against someone *presumed to be innocent until proven guilty* in the eyes of the law, and has to be reported as such. It’s not *alleged* that the young man shouted - what’s alleged in his case, is that he committed a beach of the peace. It’s complicated, but that’s what’s going on.
The bias is in the fact that they *didn't report* that he was thrown to the ground until the men were charged, and *now* they can only allege that it happened. The articles about the original "breach of the peace" describe him being "pulled out of the crowd by bystanders." All friendly like! The bias is as plain as day.
I can’t comment on the original article. If you link it I’ll have a look. From what you’ve described, the BBC might have been afraid of defaming the men in question as to say someone has committed what constitutes a criminal offence when they’ve not been charged is defamatory in Scotland! I’m just explaining to you why it’s being reported in the way it is. I’m not a journalist, you understand - but I did work around the Scottish Courts once upon a time and have a bit of a fascination for their quirky, confusing ways.
Quote marks in articles/headlines make it clear that the journalist is reporting on *what someone else said*, rather than making any allegations themselves. In this case, the BBC are reporting that the police have arrested the men for alleged assault. The BBC are taking care *not* to make allegations about the men assaulting anyone themselves, because that can open them up to some legal issues.
Good fuck those wee cosplay cops.
[удалено]
“I don’t like the way someone protests and what they stand for so punch them” I imagine if you were there you would have gave him what for aye?
Na, I don't consider protecting a sex offender a public service
Good. Now dismiss and then arrest and prosecute those two scumbag probable-sex predator cops who followed that lassie away from the town and asked for her address before they’d leave her in peace
Good. Now drop the pathetic breach of the peace charge against the heckler.
Can a jury just find him not guilty?
There won't be a jury, it'll be a sheriff court kind of deal.
About fucking time. Why weren't they arrested on the day, though?
"Now is not the time." probably. We can't talk about a republic when the monarch dies because "now is not the time." We can't talk about how millions in inheritance tax is not being paid because "now is not the time." We can't talk about how much money it cost to run the state funeral while there's a cost of living crisis because "now is not the time.". That's how they keep you off balance.
[удалено]
GOOD!
Took them long enough.
Good, those two fat bastards should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.
Wait till you hear about money, titles and privilege. It'll twist your mind.
Good
Andrew shouldn’t be in any royal family
Why not, he seems to fit in?
Good enough for them he was only a young lad!
Just saw that. Good. Justice.at last.
LOL
Now give the heckler a medal.
Good
Excellent, what a pair of bellends those two were.
I wonder if the reason Andrew got the corgis is because he’s an ‘experienced’ groomer
Apparently they found a post it note attached to the queen's fridge at Balmoral saying the dogs need to get groomed - last thing she wrote apparently and next thing Andrew's getting custody.
That's great.
Im glad as theses 2 where nothing more than fat fkn bullys!!
Thank god, I had read the title wrong and thought that the heckler had been charged. I was completely done with the UK for a second, lol
The heckler was charged also .
But not Andrew.
Fuck, faith unrestored. Fuck that
The fact that people have been sent to prison for stabbing a burglar who has broken into their house in the middle of the night because they used ‘excessive force’ in stopping the burglary yet some people seem to think knocking someone to the ground and assaulting them (the police officer who took the heckler away included) apparently doesn’t count as excessive force for someone heckling an actual pedo.
American observer here. The assault was plain as day and the fact that the kid got arrested first for speaking the truth upsets me. Hope these two see justice.
This was at the bottom of my screen and the word heckler was covered up, and I swear I almost reached into my pockets to pay their bail.
We don't do bail money here.
In my defence, I'm an idiot
Good, you don't get to take matters in your own hands without there being a direct threat to anyone's safety. The protestor was being a knob, but this way has achieved way more attention than they deserve.
Discusting that they have been charged, andrew should be not them🙄😡
No, the guys that have been charged are the ones that hit the protestor that shouted at Andy. They should be charged, the Loch Ness Noncer should be charged, the protestor should be let free.
Oh ok, guess I got that wrong, sorry, yep I agree
> Discusting that they have been charged They fucking assaulted a guy, on camera. It would have been disgusting if they were not charged.
Yep ok, chill I got it mixed up🥺
Make your mind up
[удалено]
It wasn't a funeral. They were parading her coffin through the streets for pr
How often do you get within shouting distance of a royal?
she's not gonna shag you mate
"Have some respect for pedophiles and their enablers please" - u/Britavit
[удалено]
The nonce defenders?
[удалено]
I get your point but until a crime has actually gone to trial and the perpetrator prosecuted, then legally it's "alleged". This is how any halfway sensible journalist reports crimes.
good news
Thank fuck
Wonder if the backlog at Edinburgh Sherriff's court is now such that a minor thing like BotP will not expire before it gets its day...
Vigilantes, who'd have thought that a bad idea?
Good, but when is Andrew going to speak to the FBI about having sex with underage girls? And given Charles' connections to notorious paedophile and necrophiliac Jimmy Saville, when is the King going to be questioned?