Charlie, Who’s Been A Naughty Boy, Then?
Nov 7th 2003, 6:38 am
#1
I Know What's Going On!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: On The Outside Looking In!
Posts: 1,499
Charlie, Who’s Been A Naughty Boy, Then?
It's bad enough that we have to pay for the Royals as it is, but to find out that they're spending our money on KY Jelly just takes the piss!
"Errrrrrrr......Just grab hold of my ears and go for it!"
Here I will summarise what has been published, and provide links to what has not. Within the next 5 minutes you will know exactly what it is that the Royal Family are trying to keep from you.
The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury.
The press began to speculate that the Queen and Prince Charles had wanted the trial stopped because Burrell as part of his defence was about to make revelations that would shake the monarchy, and possibly endanger its future. Burrell had claimed as much.
Slowly, details of these allegations have begun to surface.
Here is a summary; links to further sources of information follow.
There are actually 2 allegations.
The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various videotapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawal of his complaint.
The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal was found in bed with that royal by a servant. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana.
It must be noted that these are at present just allegations. No court of law has ruled on their veracity. However, the royal family and their 'friends' have abused all legal precedent to make sure no court gets a chance.
A senior royal servant has recently obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday (and now other newspapers) prohibiting them from publishing this story complete with the names of the alleged participants, on the grounds that it is defamatory. When the injunction was issued, another was then slapped on the Guardian newspaper to stop them even naming the person in whose name the injunction was issued. However, that was apparently overturned, revealing that it was Michael Fawcett, 'trusted aide' to Prince Charles. A senior royal is also said to have written a letter to the Mail on Sunday asking that it not publish the story.
At present the injunction is in force, but is being fought by the newspapers. It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. The usual course of action for defamation is to sue for damages after such a statement has been made. A defence to defamation is truth; it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe they have sufficient evidence and are prepared to publish on that basis, facing enormous damage claims if it is later held to be untrue. At present they are being prevented from doing so. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded on request of the Fawcett's lawyers. Is justice being abused? Who knows when it is conducted in private? It is certainly not seen to be done.
At some point the court must decide whether such a statement is true, and libel is one of the few civil actions where a jury is required. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the least. As with the Burrell trial, it appears that legal precedent and the rule of law is being discarded to keep the Windsor's dirty secrets secret a little longer.
Clearly revelation of such a secret, and the fact that Diana was collating evidence of these secrets that the Palace is so keen to hide, will further speculation that Diana's death was no accident. Some have suggested that this evidence may have formed part of a custody battle, if Diana had have lived long enough.
Once again Diana's death has created a legally dubious situation. Firstly there must be an inquest when a British Citizen killed abroad is returned home. This inquest has been opened but then adjourned, and some 6 years after her death there are no plans to re open it.
To add further controversy, the Royal Coroner has been appointed. However Diana was not royal (her royal status was removed before her death as a result of her divorce) and she was not found dead in a royal palace. Therefore there would appear to be no legal course to appoint a Royal Coroner. However this is exactly what has happened. Why is this suspicious? Well, an inquest usually has a jury of ordinary members of the public. However a Royal Inquest has only hand picked members of the royal household. A nobbled jury? Add it all together and there is a nasty stench. No wonder the Royal Family is trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.
Its time for a written constitution, with equality in front of the law for all. And the British people must be given the right to decide their head of state.
More information
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003510556,00.html
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/n...name_page.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspub...078442,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=460962
http://www.republic.org.uk/fun/MOS_2-11-3.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=al...oe=UTF-8&hl=en
"Errrrrrrr......Just grab hold of my ears and go for it!"
Here I will summarise what has been published, and provide links to what has not. Within the next 5 minutes you will know exactly what it is that the Royal Family are trying to keep from you.
The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury.
The press began to speculate that the Queen and Prince Charles had wanted the trial stopped because Burrell as part of his defence was about to make revelations that would shake the monarchy, and possibly endanger its future. Burrell had claimed as much.
Slowly, details of these allegations have begun to surface.
Here is a summary; links to further sources of information follow.
There are actually 2 allegations.
The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various videotapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawal of his complaint.
The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal was found in bed with that royal by a servant. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana.
It must be noted that these are at present just allegations. No court of law has ruled on their veracity. However, the royal family and their 'friends' have abused all legal precedent to make sure no court gets a chance.
A senior royal servant has recently obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday (and now other newspapers) prohibiting them from publishing this story complete with the names of the alleged participants, on the grounds that it is defamatory. When the injunction was issued, another was then slapped on the Guardian newspaper to stop them even naming the person in whose name the injunction was issued. However, that was apparently overturned, revealing that it was Michael Fawcett, 'trusted aide' to Prince Charles. A senior royal is also said to have written a letter to the Mail on Sunday asking that it not publish the story.
At present the injunction is in force, but is being fought by the newspapers. It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. The usual course of action for defamation is to sue for damages after such a statement has been made. A defence to defamation is truth; it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe they have sufficient evidence and are prepared to publish on that basis, facing enormous damage claims if it is later held to be untrue. At present they are being prevented from doing so. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded on request of the Fawcett's lawyers. Is justice being abused? Who knows when it is conducted in private? It is certainly not seen to be done.
At some point the court must decide whether such a statement is true, and libel is one of the few civil actions where a jury is required. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the least. As with the Burrell trial, it appears that legal precedent and the rule of law is being discarded to keep the Windsor's dirty secrets secret a little longer.
Clearly revelation of such a secret, and the fact that Diana was collating evidence of these secrets that the Palace is so keen to hide, will further speculation that Diana's death was no accident. Some have suggested that this evidence may have formed part of a custody battle, if Diana had have lived long enough.
Once again Diana's death has created a legally dubious situation. Firstly there must be an inquest when a British Citizen killed abroad is returned home. This inquest has been opened but then adjourned, and some 6 years after her death there are no plans to re open it.
To add further controversy, the Royal Coroner has been appointed. However Diana was not royal (her royal status was removed before her death as a result of her divorce) and she was not found dead in a royal palace. Therefore there would appear to be no legal course to appoint a Royal Coroner. However this is exactly what has happened. Why is this suspicious? Well, an inquest usually has a jury of ordinary members of the public. However a Royal Inquest has only hand picked members of the royal household. A nobbled jury? Add it all together and there is a nasty stench. No wonder the Royal Family is trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.
Its time for a written constitution, with equality in front of the law for all. And the British people must be given the right to decide their head of state.
More information
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003510556,00.html
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/n...name_page.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspub...078442,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=460962
http://www.republic.org.uk/fun/MOS_2-11-3.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=al...oe=UTF-8&hl=en
Last edited by SteveBannister; Nov 7th 2003 at 6:46 am.
Nov 7th 2003, 6:45 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
it is a shameful little episode and the royals have done themselves no favours with all this legal action.
i think it is probably time for them to go, although this probably would not even be considered untill liz dies.
bugger the royals, or should that be the servants.
i think it is probably time for them to go, although this probably would not even be considered untill liz dies.
bugger the royals, or should that be the servants.
Nov 7th 2003, 6:47 am
#3
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2003
Location: GC
Posts: 3,353
Re: Charlie, Who’s Been A Naughty Boy, Then?
Originally posted by SteveBannister
It's bad enough that we have to pay for the Royals as it is, but to find out that they're spending our money on KY Jelly just takes the piss!
Here I will summarise what has been published, and provide links to what has not. Within the next 5 minutes you will know exactly what it is that the Royal Family are trying to keep from you.
The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury.
The press began to speculate that the Queen and Prince Charles had wanted the trial stopped because Burrell as part of his defence was about to make revelations that would shake the monarchy, and possibly endanger its future. Burrell had claimed as much.
Slowly, details of these allegations have begun to surface.
Here is a summary; links to further sources of information follow.
There are actually 2 allegations.
The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various videotapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawal of his complaint.
The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal was found in bed with that royal by a servant. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana.
It must be noted that these are at present just allegations. No court of law has ruled on their veracity. However, the royal family and their 'friends' have abused all legal precedent to make sure no court gets a chance.
A senior royal servant has recently obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday (and now other newspapers) prohibiting them from publishing this story complete with the names of the alleged participants, on the grounds that it is defamatory. When the injunction was issued, another was then slapped on the Guardian newspaper to stop them even naming the person in whose name the injunction was issued. However, that was apparently overturned, revealing that it was Michael Fawcett, 'trusted aide' to Prince Charles. A senior royal is also said to have written a letter to the Mail on Sunday asking that it not publish the story.
At present the injunction is in force, but is being fought by the newspapers. It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. The usual course of action for defamation is to sue for damages after such a statement has been made. A defence to defamation is truth; it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe they have sufficient evidence and are prepared to publish on that basis, facing enormous damage claims if it is later held to be untrue. At present they are being prevented from doing so. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded on request of the Fawcett's lawyers. Is justice being abused? Who knows when it is conducted in private? It is certainly not seen to be done.
At some point the court must decide whether such a statement is true, and libel is one of the few civil actions where a jury is required. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the least. As with the Burrell trial, it appears that legal precedent and the rule of law is being discarded to keep the Windsor's dirty secrets secret a little longer.
Clearly revelation of such a secret, and the fact that Diana was collating evidence of these secrets that the Palace is so keen to hide, will further speculation that Diana's death was no accident. Some have suggested that this evidence may have formed part of a custody battle, if Diana had have lived long enough.
Once again Diana's death has created a legally dubious situation. Firstly there must be an inquest when a British Citizen killed abroad is returned home. This inquest has been opened but then adjourned, and some 6 years after her death there are no plans to re open it.
To add further controversy, the Royal Coroner has been appointed. However Diana was not royal (her royal status was removed before her death as a result of her divorce) and she was not found dead in a royal palace. Therefore there would appear to be no legal course to appoint a Royal Coroner. However this is exactly what has happened. Why is this suspicious? Well, an inquest usually has a jury of ordinary members of the public. However a Royal Inquest has only hand picked members of the royal household. A nobbled jury? Add it all together and there is a nasty stench. No wonder the Royal Family is trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.
Its time for a written constitution, with equality in front of the law for all. And the British people must be given the right to decide their head of state.
More information
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003510556,00.html
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/n...name_page.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspub...078442,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=460962
http://www.republic.org.uk/fun/MOS_2-11-3.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=al...oe=UTF-8&hl=en
It's bad enough that we have to pay for the Royals as it is, but to find out that they're spending our money on KY Jelly just takes the piss!
Here I will summarise what has been published, and provide links to what has not. Within the next 5 minutes you will know exactly what it is that the Royal Family are trying to keep from you.
The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury.
The press began to speculate that the Queen and Prince Charles had wanted the trial stopped because Burrell as part of his defence was about to make revelations that would shake the monarchy, and possibly endanger its future. Burrell had claimed as much.
Slowly, details of these allegations have begun to surface.
Here is a summary; links to further sources of information follow.
There are actually 2 allegations.
The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various videotapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawal of his complaint.
The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal was found in bed with that royal by a servant. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana.
It must be noted that these are at present just allegations. No court of law has ruled on their veracity. However, the royal family and their 'friends' have abused all legal precedent to make sure no court gets a chance.
A senior royal servant has recently obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday (and now other newspapers) prohibiting them from publishing this story complete with the names of the alleged participants, on the grounds that it is defamatory. When the injunction was issued, another was then slapped on the Guardian newspaper to stop them even naming the person in whose name the injunction was issued. However, that was apparently overturned, revealing that it was Michael Fawcett, 'trusted aide' to Prince Charles. A senior royal is also said to have written a letter to the Mail on Sunday asking that it not publish the story.
At present the injunction is in force, but is being fought by the newspapers. It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. The usual course of action for defamation is to sue for damages after such a statement has been made. A defence to defamation is truth; it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe they have sufficient evidence and are prepared to publish on that basis, facing enormous damage claims if it is later held to be untrue. At present they are being prevented from doing so. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded on request of the Fawcett's lawyers. Is justice being abused? Who knows when it is conducted in private? It is certainly not seen to be done.
At some point the court must decide whether such a statement is true, and libel is one of the few civil actions where a jury is required. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the least. As with the Burrell trial, it appears that legal precedent and the rule of law is being discarded to keep the Windsor's dirty secrets secret a little longer.
Clearly revelation of such a secret, and the fact that Diana was collating evidence of these secrets that the Palace is so keen to hide, will further speculation that Diana's death was no accident. Some have suggested that this evidence may have formed part of a custody battle, if Diana had have lived long enough.
Once again Diana's death has created a legally dubious situation. Firstly there must be an inquest when a British Citizen killed abroad is returned home. This inquest has been opened but then adjourned, and some 6 years after her death there are no plans to re open it.
To add further controversy, the Royal Coroner has been appointed. However Diana was not royal (her royal status was removed before her death as a result of her divorce) and she was not found dead in a royal palace. Therefore there would appear to be no legal course to appoint a Royal Coroner. However this is exactly what has happened. Why is this suspicious? Well, an inquest usually has a jury of ordinary members of the public. However a Royal Inquest has only hand picked members of the royal household. A nobbled jury? Add it all together and there is a nasty stench. No wonder the Royal Family is trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.
Its time for a written constitution, with equality in front of the law for all. And the British people must be given the right to decide their head of state.
More information
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003510556,00.html
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/n...name_page.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspub...078442,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=460962
http://www.republic.org.uk/fun/MOS_2-11-3.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=al...oe=UTF-8&hl=en
Steve - wonder how long this post will be here before it gets pulled off!
:scared:
Nov 7th 2003, 6:50 am
#4
I Know What's Going On!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: On The Outside Looking In!
Posts: 1,499
Re: Charlie, Who’s Been A Naughty Boy, Then?
Originally posted by debsy
Steve - wonder how long this post will be here before it gets pulled off!
:scared:
Steve - wonder how long this post will be here before it gets pulled off!
:scared:
Nov 7th 2003, 6:53 am
#5
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2003
Location: GC
Posts: 3,353
Michael Barrymore - CharlieShergar - Camilla
Sharon Stone - Di
Last edited by debsy; Nov 7th 2003 at 7:42 am.
Nov 7th 2003, 7:06 am
#6
Home in 2010.
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: UK-Holland-OZ-UK-OZ-2010 Back to UK
Posts: 664
Re: Charlie, Who’s Been A Naughty Boy, Then?
If you were an alien from Mars and you saw a mini series on TV of this you'd say it was a bit far fetched and that we humans were prone to telling very big lies.
Who would play his highness, the butler, Carmilla and Di?
Who would play his highness, the butler, Carmilla and Di?
Nov 7th 2003, 7:36 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
The question of whether or not we should have, or support a Royal family still stands.
But I also can't help but feel that noone deserves to have their names in lights over what goes on behind closed doors and when a crime has not been commited. By gossip maybe, but not in a national paper. I'm talking about one of the incidents.
Interesting though, and if it is printed, I will read it!
;-)
Badge
But I also can't help but feel that noone deserves to have their names in lights over what goes on behind closed doors and when a crime has not been commited. By gossip maybe, but not in a national paper. I'm talking about one of the incidents.
Interesting though, and if it is printed, I will read it!
;-)
Badge
Nov 7th 2003, 7:40 am
#8
4-1,4-1 i love it,love it
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Ashton Under Lyne,Blue 3/4 of Manchester
Posts: 333
HI,
It is said that Mr fawcett would do anything for Charles,
ie Squeeze his toothpaste, hold yhe container while Charles gave a urine sample and also Push his stool in at breakfast.
Arron
It is said that Mr fawcett would do anything for Charles,
ie Squeeze his toothpaste, hold yhe container while Charles gave a urine sample and also Push his stool in at breakfast.
Arron
Nov 7th 2003, 7:41 am
#9
Home in 2010.
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: UK-Holland-OZ-UK-OZ-2010 Back to UK
Posts: 664
Originally posted by debsy
Michael Barrymore - Charlie
Shergar - Camilla
Sharon Stone - Di
Michael Barrymore - Charlie
Shergar - Camilla
Sharon Stone - Di
Dame edna everage - Camilla
Sir les Patterson - Charles
Nov 7th 2003, 7:43 am
#10
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2003
Location: GC
Posts: 3,353
yes! Couldn't think of anyone else. Anymore suggestions folks?
Nov 7th 2003, 7:48 am
#11
Home in 2010.
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: UK-Holland-OZ-UK-OZ-2010 Back to UK
Posts: 664
Originally posted by debsy
yes! Couldn't think of anyone else. Anymore suggestions folks?
yes! Couldn't think of anyone else. Anymore suggestions folks?
Nov 7th 2003, 7:58 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yeah he was the only flunky good enough to do the toothpaste "just right".
Push his stool in at breakfast. bloody hell. Wasn't the WC ready?
Push his stool in at breakfast.
bloody hell. Wasn't the WC ready?
Nov 7th 2003, 10:01 am
#13
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Cairns
Posts: 3,918
Been wondering today, what the actual " allegations " were all about.
thanks for enlightening us and giving us another good reason to get away from - not- so- great- britain.
thanks for enlightening us and giving us another good reason to get away from - not- so- great- britain.
Nov 7th 2003, 6:54 pm
#14
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Gold Coast- the best place in the world
Posts: 3,196
Thanks Steve, you have enlightened us all today by telling it like it is. Do you work for The Sun by any chance? If not you should apply for a job !!
If not you should apply for a job !!
Nov 7th 2003, 9:30 pm
#15
Banned
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Angle vale Sth Australia
Posts: 5,353
so steve ,if your found floating face down in the Thames, over the next couple of weeks do we assume the BUTLER did it ........ 
MM
........ MM
