• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested


It is obvious why he was arrested early this morning. If they had waited until later today he would have been in the queue at the local Post Office. It is today he qualifies for his state pension.
 
errant said:
A situation where the head of state (like an American President) could have been Boris Johnson or Liz Truss doesn’t seem any better than the current setup.
Click to expand...
It wasn't just on about the monarchy marra.

We have the attorney general in America on record saying if everyone in the Epstein files was prosecuted. Capitalism would be in tatters.
Rubberglove said:
Well, he does like a pizza
Click to expand...
Cheese pizza with a slice of walnut cake on the side. Dont know if he likes beef jerry though.
 
Be careful what you say on here or elsewhere about the allegations . As there has been an arrest, the matter is subject to the Contempt of Court legislation







Key Rules Regarding Online Discussions of Arrests:
  • When Proceedings Become "Active": Legal proceedings are considered "active" the moment a suspect is arrested, a warrant is issued, or a summons is served. From this point forward, strict liability applies, meaning you can be in contempt regardless of whether you intended to prejudice the case.
  • What You Should Not Post/Discuss:
    • Speculation on Guilt: Expressing views on whether a person is guilty or innocent.
    • Previous Convictions: Mentioning a person's prior criminal record or "bad character".
    • Evidence/Witnesses: Discussing evidence that may or may not be heard in court, or details about witnesses.
    • Protected Identities: Naming or sharing images of victims in sexual offence cases, or identifying children involved as victims, witnesses, or defendants.
    • Ignoring Injunctions: Naming someone protected by a court order or, in some cases, identifying a defendant whose identity has been withheld by a judge.
  • The "Strict Liability" Rule: The law applies to everyone—not just journalists—meaning personal,, casual, or "banter-style" social media posts can lead to criminal charges, with potential penalties including unlimited fines or up to two years in prison.
  • "Reasonable Care" Defense: While ignorance is not a defense, you may not be guilty of contempt if, "having taken all reasonable care," you did not know and had no reason to suspect that proceedings were active.
  • Exceptions: Fair and accurate reports of court proceedings held in public, or good-faith discussions of public affairs where the risk of prejudice is purely incidental, are generally not considered contempt.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top