Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturbo
September 12, 2013
Prince Philip Seeks to Use the Law to Ban Reporting of His Grotesque Family’s Secrets
Thanks for sharing on FB, Peter.
Oh, I do SO love David Icke. You can’t beat dry, British humour, especially in David’s flavour.
In these troubled times, we all need a few guffaws now and then.
Here’s some juicy gossip for you, my friends, à la Icke. (It’s true, though—not just gossip) He has the BEST images, don’t you think?
I suspect some of my newer readers may not have understood my former references to Lizzie the Lizard Queen and the like, but truly, folks, that’s just the reality of it. We are not the only race of sentient beings on this old Earth.
It was meant to be ours, but was overrun with reptiles from space who stole our memories and turned us into Cinderellas. The White Knights are working behind the scenes with the help of our fairy godmothers to find our glass slippers and transform us back into the angelic beings we truly are. In the mean time, don’t go kissing any shape-shifting frogs. ~ BP
From DavidIcke.com
Talking of which … Prince Philip seeks to use the law to ban reporting of his grotesque family’s secrets
And, wow, there are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo many that would end the monarchy if they came out – and they will. It is time.
‘Any story about the health of a member of the Royal family will also be banned if Prince Philip’s complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is upheld.
In the past, this would have meant that Diana, Princess of Wales’s bulimia would have remained a secret, as would Princess Margaret’s scalding in her bath and the late Queen Elizabeth choking on fish bones.
The Royal biographer Hugo Vickers said that whilst the Duke had a right to privacy over his medical details, the case raised serious questions about what the public should and should not be told about the Royal family’s behaviour.’
I mean, what could they possibly have to hide?
From The Telegraph
Prince Philip gagging row: The Royal stories you would never have read
The Duke of Edinburgh’s attempt to ban the media from reporting on the private lives of the Royals means that in future, newspapers may be prevented from printing the sort of scoops which have for decades helped define our view of the first family.
Stories about the extramarital affairs of Diana, Princess of Wales and the Prince of Wales would have remained secret, meaning the public would not have found out about Princess Diana’s relationship with the cavalry officer James Hewitt, or heard the “Squidgygate tapes” of her long, romantic conversations with another boyfriend, James Gilbey.
Lawyers would also have been able to argue that Prince Charles’s affair with Camilla Parker Bowles was a private matter, though newspapers could have retorted that the constitutional implications of the future king cheating on the future queen were a matter of public interest.
Such a defence would have been unlikely to succeed, however, in the case of paparazzi photographs of a topless Duchess of York having her toes sucked by the American tycoon John Bryan whilst she was still married to the Duke of York, meaning the pictures would never have seen the light of day.
A whole series of Royal divorces would have come completely out of the blue to a public who would have had no idea of problems in the doomed marriages of the Princess Royal, Princess Margaret and The Duke of York.
More recently, reports of Prince William’s on-off relationship with Kate Middleton, another possible future queen, would have been deemed off-limits until such a time as the couple announced any engagement, and Chelsy Davy, Prince Harry’s girlfriend, would be a complete stranger to the public.
Any story about the health of a member of the Royal family will also be banned if Prince Philip‘s complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is upheld.
In the past, this would have meant that Diana, Princess of Wales’s bulimia would have remained a secret, as would Princess Margaret’s scalding in her bath and the late Queen Elizabeth choking on fish bones.
The Royal biographer Hugo Vickers said that whilst the Duke had a right to privacy over his medical details, the case raised serious questions about what the public should and should not be told about the Royal family’s behaviour.
“If the Princess of Wales has an affair, is that something that should be kept quiet?” he said. “There was certainly a time when it would have been, but times have changed.
“All the newspapers knew for a long time that Edward VIII was going to abdicate, but they agreed to keep it quiet until it was announced. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting we should return to those days.
“The Duke of Edinburgh is a very intelligent man and I doubt he is going to complain about every little thing. It may be that he will draw the line between what is accurate and what isn’t, and that he is doing this to fire a warning shot across the bows of the media.”
Mr Justice Eady’s ruling in the Max Mosley sex case established a de facto privacy law in the UK which is likely to be used repeatedly by public figures to suppress reports about their private lives.
Mr Mosley successfully argued that the News of the World had no right to print details of an orgy he had enjoyed with five prostitutes because what he got up to in private was nobody’s business but his own.
The newspaper had claimed that the sadomasochistic session in a London flat had a Nazi theme to it, and that Mr Mosley, the son of the 1930s fascist leader Oswald Mosley, was therefore unfit to be head of world motorsport’s governing body, the FIA.
But the High Court judge dismissed the “Nazi” claims, and said that the public had no right to know about Mr Mosley’s spanking sessions, awarding him £60,000 in damages.
Mr Justice Eady’s decision was based on the European Convention on Human Rights, which sets out an individual’s right to privacy, which is only forfeited if there is an overwhelming public interest in exposing someone’s behaviour.
Article Eight of the Convention states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”
The Mosley case tested the wording of the Convention to the limit, as the judge’s ruling showed that even when someone is involved in deviant behaviour their right to privacy is paramount.
Legal experts said at the time of last month’s ruling that it raised the bar in privacy cases, and gave encouragement to anyone who might be inclined to sue a newspaper for printing details of their personal life.
Source
Thanks to: http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com
Prince Philip Seeks to Use the Law to Ban Reporting of His Grotesque Family’s Secrets
Oh, I do SO love David Icke. You can’t beat dry, British humour, especially in David’s flavour.
In these troubled times, we all need a few guffaws now and then.
Here’s some juicy gossip for you, my friends, à la Icke. (It’s true, though—not just gossip) He has the BEST images, don’t you think?
I suspect some of my newer readers may not have understood my former references to Lizzie the Lizard Queen and the like, but truly, folks, that’s just the reality of it. We are not the only race of sentient beings on this old Earth.
It was meant to be ours, but was overrun with reptiles from space who stole our memories and turned us into Cinderellas. The White Knights are working behind the scenes with the help of our fairy godmothers to find our glass slippers and transform us back into the angelic beings we truly are. In the mean time, don’t go kissing any shape-shifting frogs. ~ BP
From DavidIcke.com
Talking of which … Prince Philip seeks to use the law to ban reporting of his grotesque family’s secrets
And, wow, there are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo many that would end the monarchy if they came out – and they will. It is time.
‘Secrets? Yes, they gave me a medal for every one – these are just a few.’
‘Any story about the health of a member of the Royal family will also be banned if Prince Philip’s complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is upheld.
In the past, this would have meant that Diana, Princess of Wales’s bulimia would have remained a secret, as would Princess Margaret’s scalding in her bath and the late Queen Elizabeth choking on fish bones.
The Royal biographer Hugo Vickers said that whilst the Duke had a right to privacy over his medical details, the case raised serious questions about what the public should and should not be told about the Royal family’s behaviour.’
I mean, what could they possibly have to hide?
From The Telegraph
Prince Philip gagging row: The Royal stories you would never have read
The Duke of Edinburgh’s attempt to ban the media from reporting on the private lives of the Royals means that in future, newspapers may be prevented from printing the sort of scoops which have for decades helped define our view of the first family.
Stories about the extramarital affairs of Diana, Princess of Wales and the Prince of Wales would have remained secret, meaning the public would not have found out about Princess Diana’s relationship with the cavalry officer James Hewitt, or heard the “Squidgygate tapes” of her long, romantic conversations with another boyfriend, James Gilbey.
Lawyers would also have been able to argue that Prince Charles’s affair with Camilla Parker Bowles was a private matter, though newspapers could have retorted that the constitutional implications of the future king cheating on the future queen were a matter of public interest.
Such a defence would have been unlikely to succeed, however, in the case of paparazzi photographs of a topless Duchess of York having her toes sucked by the American tycoon John Bryan whilst she was still married to the Duke of York, meaning the pictures would never have seen the light of day.
A whole series of Royal divorces would have come completely out of the blue to a public who would have had no idea of problems in the doomed marriages of the Princess Royal, Princess Margaret and The Duke of York.
More recently, reports of Prince William’s on-off relationship with Kate Middleton, another possible future queen, would have been deemed off-limits until such a time as the couple announced any engagement, and Chelsy Davy, Prince Harry’s girlfriend, would be a complete stranger to the public.
Any story about the health of a member of the Royal family will also be banned if Prince Philip‘s complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is upheld.
In the past, this would have meant that Diana, Princess of Wales’s bulimia would have remained a secret, as would Princess Margaret’s scalding in her bath and the late Queen Elizabeth choking on fish bones.
The Royal biographer Hugo Vickers said that whilst the Duke had a right to privacy over his medical details, the case raised serious questions about what the public should and should not be told about the Royal family’s behaviour.
“If the Princess of Wales has an affair, is that something that should be kept quiet?” he said. “There was certainly a time when it would have been, but times have changed.
“All the newspapers knew for a long time that Edward VIII was going to abdicate, but they agreed to keep it quiet until it was announced. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting we should return to those days.
“The Duke of Edinburgh is a very intelligent man and I doubt he is going to complain about every little thing. It may be that he will draw the line between what is accurate and what isn’t, and that he is doing this to fire a warning shot across the bows of the media.”
Mr Justice Eady’s ruling in the Max Mosley sex case established a de facto privacy law in the UK which is likely to be used repeatedly by public figures to suppress reports about their private lives.
Mr Mosley successfully argued that the News of the World had no right to print details of an orgy he had enjoyed with five prostitutes because what he got up to in private was nobody’s business but his own.
The newspaper had claimed that the sadomasochistic session in a London flat had a Nazi theme to it, and that Mr Mosley, the son of the 1930s fascist leader Oswald Mosley, was therefore unfit to be head of world motorsport’s governing body, the FIA.
But the High Court judge dismissed the “Nazi” claims, and said that the public had no right to know about Mr Mosley’s spanking sessions, awarding him £60,000 in damages.
Mr Justice Eady’s decision was based on the European Convention on Human Rights, which sets out an individual’s right to privacy, which is only forfeited if there is an overwhelming public interest in exposing someone’s behaviour.
Article Eight of the Convention states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”
The Mosley case tested the wording of the Convention to the limit, as the judge’s ruling showed that even when someone is involved in deviant behaviour their right to privacy is paramount.
Legal experts said at the time of last month’s ruling that it raised the bar in privacy cases, and gave encouragement to anyone who might be inclined to sue a newspaper for printing details of their personal life.
Source
Thanks to: http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com
