XPost: alt.talk.royalty, alt.conspiracy, alt.gossip.royalty
From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk
In article <1142207737.499147.142810@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
volcaran writes
>banana wrote:
>> In article <1142189837.379901.23720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>> volcaran writes
>> >
>> >banana wrote:
>> >> In article <26z1WKABOBFEFwWu@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana > >> HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >>
>> >> >This is an important article. The 'Sunday Times' is catching up with
>> >> >what we have been discussing on alt.conspiracy.princess-diana for years.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > b) for the record (and although irrelevant to the issue of coronial
>> >> > jurisdiction) 'Princess' Diana was NOT a member of the 'royal' family
>> >> > when she died.
>> >> >
>> >> > (Could any journalists reading this please get the above point through
>> >> > their thick heads?)
>> >
>> >Since you accept her royal status or otherwise is not relevant why is
>> >it an issue?
>>
>> For this reason: because to present her as a member of the 'royal'
>> family is to say that she was in the same family as 'Prince' Charles
>> when she died - which she most definitely wasn't. I doubt that there has
>> ever been another case when an ex-husband has had the body of his
>> ex-wife taken out of a foreign country,
>
>And why not,
What - just let it be taken by someone who isn't in the dead person's
family and whose guts the dead person was well known to despise, hours
after the person has been killed in highly suspicious circumstances, so
that the despised non-family party can keep the body in his house - you
seriously ask 'why not?' !!
>her next of kin were his children too.
Irrelevant.
>> in which she had died an
>> unnatural death, and kept it in his house in England,
>
>Her body was in the chapel at St James's Palace, hardly "his house" in
>ordinary parlance.
St James's Palace is his house. It's one of the places where he lives.
He's rich. It's a big house. It's got a chapel in it. If he was the
'Duke' of Devonshire and we were talking about the chapel in Chatsworth,
you might get the point?
>Where would your preference have been?
In a French mortuary until all French legal proceedings have closed.
>>with the explicit
>> and open cooperation of the UK/English authorities.
>>
>> By obscuring the fact that she wasn't a member of the 'royal' family, or
>> by saying the opposite, the media controllers can present certain
>> assertions, such as that a copy of 'Lord' Stevens's report will be given
>> to 'Prince' Charles, appear as if they were 'normal'.
>
>If the report is made available no doubt it will be to her next of kin,
>i.e. her sons both of whom have now reached maturity.
I have no problem with that. Indeed I think they should get a copy. But
it has been reported that a copy will go to her ex-spouse.
>> >The jurisdiction of coroner when there is an unnatural death abroad is
>> >not determined by the Coroner's Act but by Home Office direction as we
>> >have debated before.
>>
>> To the extent that that played a role, if any, it is of course open to
>> judicial review.
>
>Why would any judge find the procedures were not followed in accordance
>with the Home Office direction. The norm is for the coroner at the
>place of burial to have jurisidiction not least for the convenience of
>the next of kin.
Bodies of people who've died violently abroad can lie on slabs for
years.
'Convenience of the next of kin' as a reason for having Burton wear his
'royal coroner' hat rather than his 'Hammersmith coroner' hat? Why would
that be more convenient for them? Rubbish!
>In Diana's case no decision had been taken on burial
>when her body was returned to the UK. Her next of kin's official
>residence had become St James's.
The Coroners Act refers to where a body is lying, not the next of kin's
official residence.
You seem to want the palace to be someone's house when convenient, and
not someone's house when not convenient.
>> >As far as I can see Fayed has no legitimate claim
>> >to dispute the circumstances of Diana's inquest - he is not a relative.
>> >His son's inquest is under the Surrey Coroner. One wonders why he wants
>> >yet a further delay having been partly responsible for some of the
>> >delay caused in the French proceedings which in turn has delayed the UK
>> >inquests. Maybe he is getting concerned that a claim against his empire
>> >looms large.
>>
>> I would have thought he'd accept the convening of a joint inquest,
>> before a jury of 'members of the public', tomorrow.
>
>And why should Fayed have any say whatsoever as far as Diana's inquest
>is concerned?
He is next of kin of someone who died in connection with the same car
crash. There obviously should be a joint inquest.
>> It is inaccurate to
>> blame him for causing delay.
>
>I believe I said he was partly responsible. Why do you think otherwise,
>if indeed you do?
If making applications in the French legal system which the French
judiciary have taken time to process is being partly responsible for
delay, then OK, he has been partly responsible for delay, if that's what
you mean, but there is nothing reprehensible in that - and he is not
responsible for the French judiciary playing a 'three wise monkeys'
game. Ditto with regard to raising evidence with 'Lord' Stevens which
'Lord' Stevens has taken time to do whatever he's done with it (whether
in his rather insecure office in northern England or elsewhere). He is
hardly 'playing for time' to delay getting sued for negligence - I think
that's a ridiculous idea, and have done for the past 9 years.
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
