|
Royal invovled in sex and drugs blackmailing |
|
|
|
|
Written by Staff Writer
|
|
Oct 28, 2007 at 05:34 PM |
Buckingham Palace has refused to discuss the report in the Sunday Times,
which said the case involved allegations of drugs and sex, though the BBC is reporting that the royal "wasn't senior".
Former Palace spokesman Dickie Arbiter said royal officials would have
carried out their own inquiry into the validity of the Sunday Times story,
but that it was unlikely that the name of the Royal Family member would be
revealed.
"It's a vast family, there are nearly 40 members... We don't know, we won't
know, until the case comes to trial at the Old Bailey in December, and we
might not even know then, which member of the Royal Family [it is]."
Mr Arbiter added that he was surprised by how long it had taken for the
story to break.
"It's taken six weeks for it to come to light, so how serious is the
allegation?
"It's interesting too, that it's come out in the Sunday Times and not one of
the usual tabloid scoops.
"So it's going to take the due process of the law to determine was this true
or was this just another fake sting?"
On a related note this is the scoop on the old story we wen're allowed to see:
The trial of Paul Burrell, the Master of hotel of Diana, was stopped in November 2002 after a simple phone call of prince Charles with the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation which it had with Paul Burrell little time after the death of Diana. During this conversation, one says that Burrell indicates the queen whom it would take some articles to keep sure. This revelation carry out to the end of the test, in spite of the fact that the report/ratio of prince Charles was legally nothing more than the rumour. The queen or prince Charles was never invited to support this report/ratio in the writing, or under the oath. Legally speaking, it is without precedent. Whoever which comes differently ahead with such ' an obviousness ' on a late date can spout out is charged to waste the time of police force not to quote it previously, and would certainly be requested to sign a declaration under oath under the threat of the perjury. The pressure started with speculer that the queen and prince Charles had wanted the test stopped because Burrell as an element of its defense was about to make the revelations which would shake monarchy, and probably endangers its future. Burrell had claimed as much. Slowly, the details of these allegations started to prepare. Here a synopsis, bonds of others with sources of information follow. There are really 2 allegations. First is that elder and firm assistance to royal elder is pled to have George violated by Smith male, another servant of palate. George Smith later reported the attack pled to the police force and one it suggests that the complaints were recorded on various video cassettes probably by Diana. George Smith later withdrew her complaint once questioned by Police. It was also given of the £38.000 pay with far by prince Charles, apparently disconnected with the withdrawl from its complaint. The second allegation is that elder and firm assistance to royal elder was found in the bed with that royal by a servant. The royal ones and the servant are male. It is said that also this allegation is recorded by Diana. He must note that they are currently right allegations. No court of law reigned on their veracity. However, the royal family and their ' friends maltreated all the legal precedent to make sure that no court obtains a chance. An elder royal servant recently obtained an injunction against the mail Sunday (and maintaining other newspapers) prohibiting them to publish this complete history with the names of the pled participants, because it is defamatory. When the injunction was published, another was then slapped on the newspaper of guard to stop calling them even the person in whom the name the injunction was published. However, that was apparently turned over, that it was Michael Fawcett, ' assistance of confidence ' of indication to prince Charles. It is said that also royal elder writes a letter with the mail Sunday requiring that it not to publish the history. Currently the injunction is in force, but is fought by the newspapers. It is without precedent so that a court grants such an injunction. The usual policy for slandering must continue for damage after such a report/ratio was submitted. A defense with slandering is truth, it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe that they have the sufficient obviousness and are prepared to publish on this basis, facing enormous complaints of damage if one holds it later for forgery. Currently they are prevented from thus making. Much more without precedent is that a great part of the steps taken by the court were held in private with the press and the public excluded on request from lawyers from Fawcett. Is justice maltreated? Who knows when it is led in private. Is certainly not seen it to be made. At a certain point the court must decide if such a report/ratio is true, and slandering is one of the some civil proceedings where a jury is requested. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the minors. As with the test of Burrell, it is obvious that this legal precedent and the rule of the law is thrown to maintain the secrecy dirty of the secrecies of Windsor little longer. Clearly the revelation of such a secrecy, and the fact that Diana assembled the obviousness of these secrecies which the palate is so sharp to hide, will promote the speculation which the death of Diana was not any accident. Some suggested that this obviousness could have formed part of a battle of guard, if Diana had to have lived long enough. The death of Diana again created a situation legally doubtful. Firstly there must is an investigation when a British citizen killed abroad is turned over to the house. This investigation open but then was raised, and some 6 years after its death there are not any plan with Re open it. To add more polemic, the royal coroner was named. However Diana was not royal (her royal statute was removed before her death because of her divorce) and it was not found died in a royal palate. Consequently it would not seem y to have any legal tender to name a royal coroner. However it is exactly what occurred. Why is they suspicious? Well, an investigation has usually a jury of the ordinary members of the public. However a royal investigation has only the members selected by hand of the royal household. With nobbled the jury? Add to it any unit and there is a malicious stink. No wonder that the royal family try to keep you, the people who pay their life style exaggerated, in the darkness. Its hour for a constitution written, with the equality in front of the law for all. And the British people must be given the right to decide their Head of State. |
|
Last Updated ( Oct 29, 2007 at 05:18 AM )
|
Entertainment