27 November 2003

This is what happens when people get to vote

Royals are rarely in danger of getting voted out of office, largely because they aren't subject to having to worry about people hating the sight of them, because they keep their well paid "jobs" however badly they do them.

On the rare Occasions that people do get to voice their opinions in a ballot, one gets an idea of quite how unpopular these people are.

On the 26th November 2003 Edinburgh University students voted on a motion to remove Prince Philip as chancellor of the university.

1000 students turned up the for meeting (the highest turnout in living memory) and had their say the good old democratic way.

And voted to remove Prince Philip.

However true to Royal tradition, the University remains resolute in its support of Philip and refuses to even consider a change.

Democracy in action in Britain today.

See more:
BBC News - Students seek royal resignation
EUSA - Biggest turnout in memory as AGM votes

06 November 2003

The Royal Scandal. What we can and can't tell you

Many people are currently visiting this site and many are contacting us asking for details about a current Royal scandal. For legal reasons we can't give the full story. Here we will summarize 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 video tapes 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 withdrawl 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 injuction 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 damages 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 are trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.

Whether people are gay or bisexual is neither an issue nor a scandal as far as we're concerned. The real scandal is whether any close personal relationship resulted in serious allegations of rape being 'made to go away' (as Fiona Shackleton, Charles's lawyer, might say).

More information
The Sun - Royal in Bed with 'Flunkey'
The Guardian - Guardian royal case to begin in private
The Independent - Royal servant allegations appear on website
Republic.org.uk - What was the 'Mail on Sunday' story that was suppressed?
Alt.Gossip.Royalty - Excellent Usenet source of royal scandal

BREAKING NEWS - 15:52 6 Nov 2003
The Guardian - Guardian victory
Guardian can now reveal that the servant who obtained an injunction agaist the Mail on Sunday to prohibit publication of a story is Michael Fawcett, a former servant to Prince Charles. The injunction against the Mail on Sunday remains in force for the moment.

BREAKING NEWS - 22:17 6 Nov 2003
The BBC - Clarence House Statement
Michael Peat, the man who cleared Prince Charles and Michael Fawcett of any wrongdoing in the inquiry into the 'gifts' scandal reads a statement denying that the stories are true.

03 November 2003

The genetically modified prince

From the Daily Express, 1/11/2003

"He has been called a crank, adulterer and if often derided for talking to plants.

But now Prince Charles has come under the most astonishing attack – by being labelled an “inbred”.

The world-famous fertility expert Lord Robert Winston slammed the Prince for his blue-blood heritage which has led to “generations of inbreeding”.

Television scientist and Labour peer Professor Winston said that this made Charles a “genetically modified organism”. In the past, Charles had been portrayed as an eco-babble spouting aristocrat interested in alternative religion and medicines, organic food and traditional architecture. He has been lampooned for his obtrusive ears and ridiculed for a history of unprovoked outbursts – and the admission in a 1986 TV documentary that he talked to plants.

But n an attack on Charles’s “misguided” campaign against genetically modified food Prof Winston questioned the heir to the throne’s genetic make-up.

Prof Winston said: “It is outrageous that the Prince of Wales has led a misguided campaign against GM which is largely instinctual. It is an odd protect by Prince Charles seeing that, after generations of inbreeding, he himself is one of the most genetically modified organisms on the planet.

Prof Winston’s comments came in a lecture to 350 students at the University of Bath, Somerset. He showed two slides of Charles drinking Assam tea and receiving a carnation, which he claimed were both genetically modified plants."

See also Prince Charles is one of the most genetically modified organisms on the planet