24 December 2003

Santa's Little Headcase

The Queen is said to be distraught after Princess Anne's dog attacked a corgi of hers which later died of its injuries. The same bull terrier that attacked two children walking in a park during 2002 is believed to be responsible.

Princess Anne was treated leniently after the 2002 attack and her dog was not destroyed despite the injuries caused to the children. The defence at the time, without giving any explanation for the dogs violent behaviour, said Dotty was a good natured dog "lacking in malice". Dr Roger Mugford said the bull terrier should not be put down and described her as "an utterly placid, playful dog". His web site claims he has the solution to biting dogs:


It also touts his services as a 'skilled and experienced expert witness', just what you need to keep your psychotic attack dog off doggy death row, for a fat fee no doubt:


The family of the children mauled in the last attack were angry with the sentence and believed the animal should have been put down as it posed a clear danger. Perhaps Mr Mugford should seek some doggy psychology lessons from them as they appear to be significantly more 'expert' than him. Whether his expert testimony borders on perjury is something that will no doubt be overlooked, although it will surely be raised by the prosecution next time he poses as an 'expert' to save homocidal mutts with rich owners.

More information:
BBC News - Anne's dog 'kills Queen's corgi'
Princess Anne fined for dog bite

22 December 2003

Windsors 'nobble' Diana inquest

There is nothing the Windsors hate more than independent public scrutiny of their behaviour. When wrongdoing is alleged in Prince Charles' household, it is his "good friend" and employee, Michael Peat, that he appoints to carry out an "independent" investigation.

Some six years or so after the death of Princess Diana, the coroner appointed to investigate has finally set a date for the inquest which it is confirmed will commence on the 6th January 2004.

However, unlike normal inquests, this will be far from independent.

The Coroners Act 1988, the law governing the appointment of coroners, and the conduct of inquest states at s.29:

(2) The coroner of the Queen's household shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of inquests into the deaths of persons whose bodies are lying
(a) within the limits of any of the Queen's palaces; or
(b) within the limits of any other house where Her Majesty is then residing.

(3) The limits of any such palace or house shall be deemed to extend to any courts, gardens or other places within the curtilage of the palace or house but not further; and where a body is lying in any place beyond those limits, the coroner within whose district the body is lying, and not the coroner for the Queen's household, shall have jurisdiction to hold an inquest into the death.

Diana's body was not found within the limits of a Royal Palace, it was found in a wrecked Mercedes car in a tunnel in Paris. Clearly subsection 3 states that a normal coroner should have been appointed. One may therefore ask why a Royal Coroner has been appointed instead.

Subsection 4 provides a possible answer.

(4) The jurors on an inquest held by the coroner of the Queen's household shall consist of officers of that household, to be returned by such officer of the Queen's household as may be directed to summon the jurors by the warrant of the coroner.

There we have it. A nobbled jury. The Windsors are going to be permitted to hand pick the jury that will decide (inter alia) whether Diana's claim that a senior Royal would kill her in a car accident is true.

The law relating to the appointment of a Royal Coroner has been completely ignored so that a nobbled Coroner AND jury can be appointed.

Once again the Windsors are rigging the system to ensure no inquiry is indepedent. One wonders what they are trying to conceal this time?

More Information:
BBC News - Date set for princess's inquest
BBC News - Q&A: Diana and Dodi inquests
HMSO - Coroners Act 1988 s29

05 December 2003

Queen bans Mirror from palace

One of the major problems with our constitution is the inevitable confusion between the Queen as an individual and the Queen as sovereign. The Queen is now barring the Mirror Newspaper from state functions as a result of a report it made about her and her family's private life.

A Mirror reporter had secured a job working as a footman at Buckingham Palace prior to the visit of President Bush. Not only was this highly embarrassing from a security viewpoint, the journalist also gave intimate details of life at Buck House and Windsor Castle including the fact that:
  • Prince Andrew is universally detested, he shouts "fuck off" at staff when they come into his room in the morning, and gets upset if they don't bow low enough when he emerges from his Aston Martin.
  • Prince Edward has teddy bears on his bed
  • the Queen uses "Tupperware"
The Queen later gained an injunction to stop further publication of the Mirror journalist's reports and both parties came to a settlement.

However, the Queen has now blocked the Mirror from sending journalists to public events at the palace.

A journalist who arrived at the palace to cover David Beckham's OBE was refused entry.

Asked if the Beckham exclusion was revenge for the Mirror story, the Queen's press secretary Penny Russell-Smith replied: "I think that would be a logical assumption, yes."

In effect the Queen is taking revenge for the Mirror's reports on her personal life, by blocking access to events that are carried out by her as Head of State.

These are public events paid for by public money. It is not for the Queen to decide who attends, especially not if that decision is based on her personal problems. Once again the Queen is treating this country like her personal property.

The Mirror - Queen Bans Mirror from Palace
The Mirror - Our Man in the Castle: Still Wide Open
The Mirror - Our Man in the Palace: My Life as a Footman