Must be careful with the wording...

[iohannes]

You've all heard about what Charles is alleged to have done, even though we cannot name it.

What we can say is that the person who gained the injunction preventing the people in the UK from knowing what these allegations are, is Michael Fawcett, former royal toothpaste squeezer.

By points are as follows:
1. If these allegations are defamatory why are we being prevented from finding them out? The usual course over defamatory comments is "publish and be damned", we have phenomonally strict and powerful libel laws in the UK. If these allegations were against mere mortals, even mortals such as Tony Blair, they would still have to take action after the fact

2. Why are the British people being prevented from knowing allegations surrounding a senior member of their Royal family? The Italians know, the Americans know, the Omanese know - but we aren't allowed to.

Now, I am not at all suggesting that Charles (he admitted he's the senior royal in question) was involved in the incidents, but in light of all the legal gagging orders, I would point you to a telling phrase of Hamlet's mother.

[munchingfoo]

I may be the only person who doesn't know, but frankly I wouldn't care even if I did.(I think)

[hr]Management: The art of writing like you know what you're talking about and making others believe it.

(munchingfoo comprehensive dictionary)

http://campushook.com/?pg=profile&u=7069

[andrewdalgleish]

i don't know either...

[underworlddreams]

The only thing that's currently going through my mind in regard to all this is... what the hell are you on about?

[hr]It's hard to look you in the face when we are talking / So it helps to have a mirror in the room...

[LeopardSkinQueen]

There have been allegations made concerning a senior member of the royals and a member of staff. It has been denied, despite the fact we can't be told what it is.

I know a bit about it- but I can't post it here. Otherwise Oli would get in trouble.


Edited for spelling.

[hr][s]"I say, Charles, don't you ever crave to appear on the front of the Daily Mail, dressed in your mother's bridal veil?"
[/s]

[iohannes]

That's my point.

I don't care, and I suppose most other people don't, what the incident in the allegations are. I can say that it is not illegal, and unlikely to bring about the fall of the monarchy despite what the tabloids say.

What just might, and I think (and hope) British people will find less allowable, is the knowledge that the royal family still perceive themselves to be above the law.

As Mary Riddel states in the Observer, "The paying public does demand some openness. It does not want the fingerprints of a future head of state on the pillars of the constitution. [That] the Windsors, or their minions, give the impression that the law is at their personal disposal."

That's what I'm going on about.
Really, you people, do you spend you time with your heads in the sand?

[LeopardSkinQueen]

It is a bit not on.

I think that if if we live in a society where these allegations could bring down the head of state, it is very sad, and is a terrible reflection of the attitudes of people.

The attitude of the royals in this case has been of the utmost arrogence. I am not surprised. I have to say, I don't understand why they can't be published in such a way as it makes it very clear that these are utterly unsubstantiated claims.

[hr][s]"I say, Charles, don't you ever crave to appear on the front of the Daily Mail, dressed in your mother's bridal veil?"
[/s]

[TheGamesMaster]

Who cares what they did? The only issue I can see here is possibly a free speech one. But if they didn't do it, then why even mention it? ... Oh yea, the publicity.

[Guest]

you can find it on the web. its not really that interesting.

[Nick Mitchell]

Injunctions are a terrible idea for PR. It makes it look like you really have something to hide and add to the curiosity of the public.

They are also astonishingly ineffective as non-UK sources are not bound (eg Italian websites) and these days everyone who can operate a search engine will find out anyway.

[Cain]

[s]Nick Mitchell wrote on 20:49, 9th Nov 2003:
Injunctions are a terrible idea for PR. It makes it look like you really have something to hide and add to the curiosity of the public.


ow about pre-emptively denying a rumour that nobody has heard?

that sounds pretty stupid from a PR point of view. now everybody knows that tehre's something really embarassing about.

[hr]
I hold an element of surprise

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]LeopardSkinQueen wrote on 17:02, 9th Nov 2003:

I know a bit about it- but I can't post it here. Otherwise Oli would get in trouble.

[/s]
[/i]

It would make an interesting case, in point of fact. The injunction that everyone is talking about was issued in ENGLAND under English law and gags, essentially, English newspapers.
Scots Law isn't affected by such injunctions and, as has happened in the past, including the Spycatcher book, the allegations could actually be published by Scottish newspapers and by BBC Scotland. And there would, or should, be nothing the Courts in England could do about it.
In the same way, given that this is effectively a Scottish website, there should, theoretically, be nothing to stop anyone publishing the details up here on this site.
Problem is, like the threats the University has issued against anyone printing or publishing anything remotely critical against the University, it would possibly be a David and Goliath act actually defending that position.

[Pilmour Boy]

Let me get this right.

Somebody, who by accident of birth, is in the public eye, is alleged to possibly have done something a few years ago.

Big F***ing Deal.

God I hate the British tabloids.

[hr]Nothing in life is free.
The only things that change are who pays for it, and when they pay.

[EvilJane]

http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2003_ ... 4821653308