Bigbusiness
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,408
- Likes
- 23
This is in the lounge. Get the lawyers out of here!!!!!!!!!
In This Thread, we post sensational rumors about the British Royal Family
- Thread starter Car Key Boi
- Start date
- Watchers 5
Car Key Boi
Well-known member
- Messages
- 396
- Likes
- 8
seancass said:
1. Channel 4 news did a piece on the royal servant gagging the Guardian newspaper and they went just as far by mentioning that website that bonsai posted (republic.org) which names Charles and Fawcett
2. Fawcett filed the injuction, that is a FACT.
3. It's only a matter of days before all of this explode
4. The Car Key Boi is always right
Newtron Bomb
Guest Author
- Messages
- 1,602
- Likes
- 87
Wot happens is wot we hav always dun... its our church and we'll do whatever the hell we want with it...
Henry made his own church so he get divorced, Charlie can equally re-rite the Bible and with 2days corruptions it can be as old and as genuine as the Turin shroud is.
As regard to the content of this thread I quite enjoy reading these as an intellectual discussion/debate of a slightly controversial nature. These thread by CKB have been usually of a delicate nature and some folk may have found offence but the peeps on these BB's have responded diplomatically and courteously (at least in the parts ive been reading lol)
While i enjoyed the US stock thread immensely, i would like to see these threads continue... they are in the lounge after all is said and done.
We are all entitled to an opinion and this is mine
Happy trading
NB
Just a reminder:- The Lounge was setup specifically to discuss non trading matters. We allow a much greater freedom of speech and expression in here, excluding personal attacks/profanities etc. I take your note about libel, Seancass, but this current topic is plastered with "allegedly" and "rumour has it" etc. Hopefully, so far there is nothing in these posts that could be considered libellous....
chartman
dont bet on it and you guys should make sure you are insured - it dont cost much and it is well worth it
you can give any opinion you want - but you have to make sure that your opinion is based on the correct fact as you saw it
so if you say you saw someone do x and that means they are y - that is ok up to a point - but if you added that they were wearing a red jumper and if fact it turned out they had on a blue jumper - it could be inferred that your opinion was about someone else so you incorrectly arrived at your opinion and would be responsible for any harm to the person
and just adding allegedly and rumours dont do nothing and in fact may make you more liable because you are suggesting that you doubted the authenticity of the remark and were trying to cover yourself
dont bet on it and you guys should make sure you are insured - it dont cost much and it is well worth it
you can give any opinion you want - but you have to make sure that your opinion is based on the correct fact as you saw it
so if you say you saw someone do x and that means they are y - that is ok up to a point - but if you added that they were wearing a red jumper and if fact it turned out they had on a blue jumper - it could be inferred that your opinion was about someone else so you incorrectly arrived at your opinion and would be responsible for any harm to the person
and just adding allegedly and rumours dont do nothing and in fact may make you more liable because you are suggesting that you doubted the authenticity of the remark and were trying to cover yourself
this concept of a monarchy and treating them as something special in this day and age is total hogwash - leaving aside that they are arrogant fucks and the worst examples of morality - i bet , stripped of all the money they nicked from normal people, they could not get through an interview for a job in mcdonalds
like british airways and british telecom - they are an embarrasment totaly based in old world arrogance
like british airways and british telecom - they are an embarrasment totaly based in old world arrogance
Trader333
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,753
- Likes
- 1,026
stevet,
Well I can see that you may have some valid points but has everyone forgotten that only last year there were over 1 million people in The Mall in celebration of the Queen ? There were also many millions of others celebrating all over the country.
The fact is that the Monarchy for all their faults and failings are very much loved by a huge section of the UK population. It is interesting isnt it that the US would love to have an institution such as this even if it is outdated and of limited use. Also what would our press have to write about if it were not for the Royals, I mean they are still milking Diana 6 years after her death.
The alternatives would not be any better as I just dont see how we can lavish the same to the likes of Gareth Gates of Jade Goody do you ?
Paul
Well I can see that you may have some valid points but has everyone forgotten that only last year there were over 1 million people in The Mall in celebration of the Queen ? There were also many millions of others celebrating all over the country.
The fact is that the Monarchy for all their faults and failings are very much loved by a huge section of the UK population. It is interesting isnt it that the US would love to have an institution such as this even if it is outdated and of limited use. Also what would our press have to write about if it were not for the Royals, I mean they are still milking Diana 6 years after her death.
The alternatives would not be any better as I just dont see how we can lavish the same to the likes of Gareth Gates of Jade Goody do you ?
Paul
Trader333
absolutly and it maybe a fact that the majority do prefer to live their lives through other peoples lives and like to feel subservient to others
and if the majority feel that - thats how it should be
but out of a million - how many were just up for a day out and might have gone to see micky mouse if he was doing some cart wheels down the mall
would be interesting to see what woudl happen if a vote based on the royal family having to give up using the states property and it was put to real use for the people of the country, and they had to pay all the back tax they screwed the country out of and which again could be used for maybe helping poor people and etc etc
and before we hear all they do - i could handle a job where the main points are travelling everywhere 1st class and stuffing my face with the best food and my biggest problem is having to wipe my own bum - thats if they do - hence the latest scandals about to erupt!
for sure when the latest stuff comes out - its gonna be real hard to continue the monarchy as an institution
and yep, you are right about americans wanting their own royal family - thats why disney land was built and if they had the choice - they woudl stick with disney land as its more real than the "Royal" family
and for sure they like the UK having a royal family as then the yanks get to laugh at us !
absolutly and it maybe a fact that the majority do prefer to live their lives through other peoples lives and like to feel subservient to others
and if the majority feel that - thats how it should be
but out of a million - how many were just up for a day out and might have gone to see micky mouse if he was doing some cart wheels down the mall
would be interesting to see what woudl happen if a vote based on the royal family having to give up using the states property and it was put to real use for the people of the country, and they had to pay all the back tax they screwed the country out of and which again could be used for maybe helping poor people and etc etc
and before we hear all they do - i could handle a job where the main points are travelling everywhere 1st class and stuffing my face with the best food and my biggest problem is having to wipe my own bum - thats if they do - hence the latest scandals about to erupt!
for sure when the latest stuff comes out - its gonna be real hard to continue the monarchy as an institution
and yep, you are right about americans wanting their own royal family - thats why disney land was built and if they had the choice - they woudl stick with disney land as its more real than the "Royal" family
and for sure they like the UK having a royal family as then the yanks get to laugh at us !
Last edited:
I do have a great deal of respect for the Queen as I believe she has done as her post requires of her and always acted in a professional manner. Unfortunately the other royals have let the side down rather badly, wot wot, and have really destroyed most peoples perceptions of the royal family.
doubtless they have always done much worse, but that was before the age of mass media.
doubtless they have always done much worse, but that was before the age of mass media.
Bigbusiness
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,408
- Likes
- 23
Does seem a strange argument that because a majority might want to keep the Royal family we should continue with this lot. I can't remember the majority voting them in. Perhaps my history is poor but aren't they a bunch of Germans who changed their name to Windsor?
We should have two votes, one to decide if we want to keep the monarchy and another to decide if we want to keep the present family who seem to be setting bad examples to all of us.
Giving them to the US would be a great idea.
We should have two votes, one to decide if we want to keep the monarchy and another to decide if we want to keep the present family who seem to be setting bad examples to all of us.
Giving them to the US would be a great idea.
Car Key Boi
Well-known member
- Messages
- 396
- Likes
- 8
stevet said:
just wanna clarify a point here
as an American i don't think the British Royal Family is something to laugh at, and my thread certainly wasn't an exercise for some gratuitous Royal bashing
we Americans are rather fond of the Royal Family, and i think it's a great institution that's rich in history and intrigue blah, and i don't think for a second that this current debacle is gonna be the end of yuor monarchy, far from it
this whole biz about Charles, Lady Di, the butler, the horsey woman Camilia and so on and so forth is an international soap opera of the highest order. Yuo couldn't make up sh!t like this! It has everything. Sex, scandal, suspicious deaths, court hearings blah blah blah, rather like our own home bred soap opera a few years back titled "Behind the Oral Office" staring The Clintons
stories like these generate interest in the Royal Family, and yuo can bet yuor ass that decades from now, the Royal Family will still be going strong, and moranic American tourists like myself will still be queueing at the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, blah, getting ass-reamed as we hand over our bucks. Now compare all of this with say the Dutch Royal Family. Who are they? exactly, no knows who they are or cares coz they're boring
sex, scandal, intrigue blah = good for sustained international interest in the Royal Family = good for UK Tourist Biz = GOOD FOR YUO BRITS!
Car Key Boi
yep - you proved my point!
and you want tourism - open up buckingham palace to all - its owned by the people of this country and there are a bunch of lazy, good for nothing, layabouts squatting there - i thought they brought out the squatting laws to get rid of that sort of thing!
and the papers have so much dirt on the royal family now collected over many many years and they are sensing the public changing their loyalty - that its just gonna come flushing out - hard to see them continuing as the heads of the country and legal system - it just wont happen
and when loyal people turn - they turn big time!
yep - you proved my point!
and you want tourism - open up buckingham palace to all - its owned by the people of this country and there are a bunch of lazy, good for nothing, layabouts squatting there - i thought they brought out the squatting laws to get rid of that sort of thing!
and the papers have so much dirt on the royal family now collected over many many years and they are sensing the public changing their loyalty - that its just gonna come flushing out - hard to see them continuing as the heads of the country and legal system - it just wont happen
and when loyal people turn - they turn big time!
- Messages
- 264
- Likes
- 0
The British will celebrate anything in order to have a good p***-up
Bigbusiness
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,408
- Likes
- 23
There were 2 million on the anti Iraq war protest but they don't count.
- Messages
- 264
- Likes
- 0
Were they all getting p***ed ?
- Messages
- 264
- Likes
- 0
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 November, 2003, 15:24 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Newspaper can name royal servant
An injunction banning The Guardian newspaper from naming a former royal servant has been lifted by the High Court.
The newspaper told the court it had no intention of repeating allegations about the servant.
The newspaper's lawyers went before a judge on Wednesday over a temporary injunction served against it on Monday night.
It followed a similar injunction issued against the Mail on Sunday, preventing it from publishing a story about the same former royal servant.
It is understood The Guardian will only publish the name of the former servant in relation to him obtaining an injunction against the Mail on Sunday.
That injunction remains in place.
The royal servant has argued that his name should not be revealed as the publication of the story would seriously libel him.
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Newspaper can name royal servant
An injunction banning The Guardian newspaper from naming a former royal servant has been lifted by the High Court.
The newspaper told the court it had no intention of repeating allegations about the servant.
The newspaper's lawyers went before a judge on Wednesday over a temporary injunction served against it on Monday night.
It followed a similar injunction issued against the Mail on Sunday, preventing it from publishing a story about the same former royal servant.
It is understood The Guardian will only publish the name of the former servant in relation to him obtaining an injunction against the Mail on Sunday.
That injunction remains in place.
The royal servant has argued that his name should not be revealed as the publication of the story would seriously libel him.
Car Key Boi
Well-known member
- Messages
- 396
- Likes
- 8
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1079163,00.html
Guardian victory
Thursday November 6, 2003
The Guardian has won the right to identify Michael Fawcett, one of Prince Charles' former top aides, as the man who has succeeded in obtaining a libel injunction banning publication in a Sunday paper of an article about him.
Such injunctions are only exceptionally granted when the court is satisfied that the allegations are untrue and the newspaper does not seek to say that the allegations are true.
Mr Fawcett, who says the contents of the banned article would have been untrue and damaging, has now lost an unprecedented legal fight to keep secret his identity as the libel claimant.
The Guardian argued before Mr Justice Tugendhat that it had the right, under normal court procedures, to tell the public who was being granted unusual injunctions by the courts, particularly if the interests of the royal family were involved.
This newspaper is not publishing the actual allegations. Not only do they differ from the highly coloured rumours about royal affairs which have surfaced recently in the tabloids: but we also have no reason to believe the allegations are true.
The saga shows, however, the extraordinary lengths to which both sides are going in the current bitter battle between scandal-hungry tabloids and an increasingly bruised royal household.
The Mail on Sunday, which is said to offer up to £500,000 a time for material from royal servants, told the palace at the weekend that it was preparing to print a sensational 3,000-word article based on an interview and an affidavit from one of them.
In the wake of Paul Burrell's recent memoirs exploiting intimate letters from Diana and Prince Philip, the Mail on Sunday clearly found the temptation irresistible. Mr Fawcett went to the courts and last Saturday was granted an injunction by the duty judge, Mr Justice McKinnon, banning publication.
Guardian victory
Thursday November 6, 2003
The Guardian has won the right to identify Michael Fawcett, one of Prince Charles' former top aides, as the man who has succeeded in obtaining a libel injunction banning publication in a Sunday paper of an article about him.
Such injunctions are only exceptionally granted when the court is satisfied that the allegations are untrue and the newspaper does not seek to say that the allegations are true.
Mr Fawcett, who says the contents of the banned article would have been untrue and damaging, has now lost an unprecedented legal fight to keep secret his identity as the libel claimant.
The Guardian argued before Mr Justice Tugendhat that it had the right, under normal court procedures, to tell the public who was being granted unusual injunctions by the courts, particularly if the interests of the royal family were involved.
This newspaper is not publishing the actual allegations. Not only do they differ from the highly coloured rumours about royal affairs which have surfaced recently in the tabloids: but we also have no reason to believe the allegations are true.
The saga shows, however, the extraordinary lengths to which both sides are going in the current bitter battle between scandal-hungry tabloids and an increasingly bruised royal household.
The Mail on Sunday, which is said to offer up to £500,000 a time for material from royal servants, told the palace at the weekend that it was preparing to print a sensational 3,000-word article based on an interview and an affidavit from one of them.
In the wake of Paul Burrell's recent memoirs exploiting intimate letters from Diana and Prince Philip, the Mail on Sunday clearly found the temptation irresistible. Mr Fawcett went to the courts and last Saturday was granted an injunction by the duty judge, Mr Justice McKinnon, banning publication.