Discussion
Ok...personally I think this is fishier than Grimsby dock when the trawlers have just come in. Very convenient for her Maj to suddenly remember that meeting after the case had been all over the papers for 18 months.
What does everyone else think?
>>> Edited by AlexH on Monday 4th November 13:20
What does everyone else think?
>>> Edited by AlexH on Monday 4th November 13:20
Try this:
Queen told by police that Burrell is selling stuff of Di's and getting rich (police lies to Queen AND Charles and Princes over various things to get support)
Queen thinks, "well l know he has some of her stuff but this takes the piss, let him sink...no point weakening the prosecution by admitting the meeting and confusing matters"
Then it is shown that in fact although he has the stuff he hasn't sold, danced in any of it etc...
Queen finds out and confirming that Burrell is about suffer as an innocent man, she subtely indicates that she is aware that he had the stuff and there is therefore no case to answer...
Bunch of ****s those spencers though eh?
Queen told by police that Burrell is selling stuff of Di's and getting rich (police lies to Queen AND Charles and Princes over various things to get support)
Queen thinks, "well l know he has some of her stuff but this takes the piss, let him sink...no point weakening the prosecution by admitting the meeting and confusing matters"
Then it is shown that in fact although he has the stuff he hasn't sold, danced in any of it etc...
Queen finds out and confirming that Burrell is about suffer as an innocent man, she subtely indicates that she is aware that he had the stuff and there is therefore no case to answer...
Bunch of ****s those spencers though eh?
funkihamsta said: Try this:
Queen told by police that Burrell is selling stuff of Di's and getting rich (police lies to Queen AND Charles and Princes over various things to get support)
So it is now the fault of the Police that the Queen forgot to tell them about the alleged meeting between her and Burrell 
Things is, I have read that the prosecution only proceeded after the police consulted with Charles initially and he agreed with it, and certainly he would seem to have been consulted very early on.
I find it amazing that Charles was never informed by her Maj at this point that everything was sorted, especially as it must have been subject to a good deal of talk between the lot of them, given they would always have had a pretty good idea how much dirt Burrell could dish.
I find it amazing that Charles was never informed by her Maj at this point that everything was sorted, especially as it must have been subject to a good deal of talk between the lot of them, given they would always have had a pretty good idea how much dirt Burrell could dish.
Oh FFS The bitch is bent just like her son. She only dug up Burrell when she realised he was prepared to shitcan the Windsors. What I am more annoyed about is £1.4M down the pan (our money) just to provide an extra bit of a distraction so Billy liar can stiff us with more anti car shite. Imagine how many speed bumps could have been flattened with £1.4M. 
Butlers should know their station in life. The gentry, like the Spencers should be allowed to strut their stuff whenever, and how, they please. Make no mistake Earl Spencer is an absolute b*****d. Remember his acrimonious divorce, his Diana death speech, etc, etc. Watch the revelations unfold he will not come out of this unblemished!! - he is personification of everything that is wrong with privilege/class - to the tower with him.
most conspiracies turn out to be cock ups. CPS have been known to make a few. You can imagine what the investigation must have been like, people bending double to maintain protocol, ballsed up lines of communication, press breathing down their necks. Also frankly if he had evidence that would help his case, then he bloody well should have made it known. He is largely to blame for the length and expense of the trial. The court system does require defendants to at least try and defend themselves.
The whole offence of theft is made up from its definition which is broken down into other constituent definitions.
Sect 1 Theft Act 1968
'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property from another, with the intention of permanently depriving another of it'
Dishonesty
appropriates
property
intention to deprive
Are all themselves subject of case law and legal definition.
However before any case can succeed where theft is concerned, the prosecution have to have a statement (on criminal justice regulation forms) from an aggrieved party about what was taken and the fact that nobody had permission to take the property.
In the case that was Princess Diana's, she cold not have been in any way the aggrieved as she could not give a statement of the loss even though the property was hers. The whole part about being dishonest falls on that alone. If at some stage she had entrusted secrets to Burrell while she was alive, how could they be rebutted after her death?
The property must have been the subject of someone elses statement for the aggrieved party.
Who could that be?
Who was the benefactor of her death in relation to her property?
Who was her next of kin?
Someone had to have given a statement on criminal justice statement forms which would have said that the property subject of this case was theirs and that Burrell did not have permission to tke or have it.
There is a situation where theft does not need a statement of the aggrieved. Whereby someone finds something of great value rather than nominal value and keeps it rather than hands it in to Police or tries to find the rightful owner themselves.
The example is finding a £ coin in the street and picking it up. No one would expect that the owner of that particular £ coin would be or could be found. So to pick it up and keep it would not be an offence of theft (So the courts have ruled)
To find a thousand pounds and make no attempt to find the owner or notify the Police would constitute theft.
The likelyhood is though that someone would report the loss of that kind of money, expecting someone that found it to be honest and hand it in to the police.
That is theft in a nutshell and why the case was flawed from the start.
Who gave a statement of loss?
Who would stand up and be cross examined in the witness box under oath?
What questions would or cold not be answered by those involved?
Burrell always stated that he had no intention to permanently deprive anyone of the property he had.
No one was able to say that he had not been given permission for some of the items in his possession, or indeed any of the items.
Look further into the mechanics of the offence of 'theft' and you will probably be able to see why it all went so terribly wrong when the ball had started to roll
Sect 1 Theft Act 1968
'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property from another, with the intention of permanently depriving another of it'
Dishonesty
appropriates
property
intention to deprive
Are all themselves subject of case law and legal definition.
However before any case can succeed where theft is concerned, the prosecution have to have a statement (on criminal justice regulation forms) from an aggrieved party about what was taken and the fact that nobody had permission to take the property.
In the case that was Princess Diana's, she cold not have been in any way the aggrieved as she could not give a statement of the loss even though the property was hers. The whole part about being dishonest falls on that alone. If at some stage she had entrusted secrets to Burrell while she was alive, how could they be rebutted after her death?
The property must have been the subject of someone elses statement for the aggrieved party.
Who could that be?
Who was the benefactor of her death in relation to her property?
Who was her next of kin?
Someone had to have given a statement on criminal justice statement forms which would have said that the property subject of this case was theirs and that Burrell did not have permission to tke or have it.
There is a situation where theft does not need a statement of the aggrieved. Whereby someone finds something of great value rather than nominal value and keeps it rather than hands it in to Police or tries to find the rightful owner themselves.
The example is finding a £ coin in the street and picking it up. No one would expect that the owner of that particular £ coin would be or could be found. So to pick it up and keep it would not be an offence of theft (So the courts have ruled)
To find a thousand pounds and make no attempt to find the owner or notify the Police would constitute theft.
The likelyhood is though that someone would report the loss of that kind of money, expecting someone that found it to be honest and hand it in to the police.
That is theft in a nutshell and why the case was flawed from the start.
Who gave a statement of loss?
Who would stand up and be cross examined in the witness box under oath?
What questions would or cold not be answered by those involved?
Burrell always stated that he had no intention to permanently deprive anyone of the property he had.
No one was able to say that he had not been given permission for some of the items in his possession, or indeed any of the items.
Look further into the mechanics of the offence of 'theft' and you will probably be able to see why it all went so terribly wrong when the ball had started to roll
AlexH said:
I find it amazing that Charles was never informed by her Maj at this point that everything was sorted, especially as it must have been subject to a good deal of talk between the lot of them, given they would always have had a pretty good idea how much dirt Burrell could dish.
Some families just dont talk anymore
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff