Seeing as this is a UK site, I've copied this thread into the mods lounge. If we decide It's cool, I'll restore your post. Until then I'm sorry but it's gonna have to stay closed. *n EDIT 2: Restored. There is a high court ban on the media reporting this story, but as we are a discussion board rather than a news site, I am taking the legal stance that this doesn't apply to us, as it doesn't apply to everyday conversation. Bit-tech accepts no reponsibility for anything written in this thread, and all posts are deemed to be the opinion of their author. Haz. Rumors about Prince C. having an affair with one of his footboys are circulating around the world these days. The Prince himself (from Oman) made a declaration saying something like "Whatever it was, i didn't do it". The Royal Family warned british newspapers and networks not to talk about these rumors and foreing newspapers vanished from London kiosks. The result: whole word knows about this (from the internet for example) but british TV can't say anything. Perhaps Buckingham Palace didn't do a good move
They say its not true, yet they want to hide away what they are saying isnt true, but the whole world knows Probably not true imo but then again why would they be very angry at this allegation if it wasnt true
Wait, hold on a sec... I admit that I don't know a lot about British politics, but the "high court" can stifle what essentially is freedom of speech? That would never fly in the US...
The High Court placed an Injunction on the story - as it can do sometimes regarding stuff which is libelous, damaging, or infringes upon law (sub-judice). The laws are there not to gag free speech (on the whole) but to protect due legal process. Some people have raised questions about wether the injunction was granted to easily - and on what grounds, in this case. If it is deemed to be in the public interest that the story is aired, then there shouldn't/wouldn't be an injuntion placed. But yes, I agree, it would never fly in the states! I heard a different version of said story. Not sure if thats the case mate, remember the Footballers Gang Rape case? They pulled down the football365 forums for naming the aledgedly involved players. If you're servers are located abroard then you may well be able to get away with it. Also it is the High Court of England and Wales that has issued an injunction, so media in Scotland if free to unveil whatever story they wish, as I believe most Scottish Newspapers did.
Re: Re: Prince Charles new scandal ? Anyone can apply for a High Court injunction against something being published. If a panel of judges see fit, it will be granted. This can also protect the little guys, true democracy.
Ah, okay - as long as anyone can do that. I read it as the government is trying to cover something up by disallowing papers to print the story.
Actually, it was the palace servant allegedly receiving some Royal attention who applied for the injunction against his own name being published. All a bit sad, like Americans finding Clinton cheats on his wife in a rather grubby way, then publicly denies it.
every one knows what he did. but the bit that cant be published is the evidence that they have. i got told by an american what it was but dont know wether to post it here or not. p.s. have a look on www.usatoday.com
Clinton is an idiot anyway. No one that I know believed his story... Q: "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski?" Clinton: "It all depends on your definition of 'sexual relations'".
as a yank, my problem (ok one of them) with Clinton, was not that he cheated on his wife (thats between him, his wife, and God) but that he lied to us about it. For the most part if he had said, yes i got some head and a little heavy petting went on, it would have been fine, but no he lied about it, over and over and over again.
A politician lying? Dear, God! The very fabric of society must surely be rendered asunder! *n [edited by GOO to save Penski from schpelling mishtake blushes ]
I know they lie, i expect them to lie when they are giving a 'stump speach' or when they are talking about what they will give us for us to vote for them, but i do not think it is acceptable for them to ever lie (for any reason) in front of a grand jury, or a federal Judge, like he did.
