...we've posted the preceding articles about this unwinding story on the PIE & Magpie docs thread Luther....you might be interested in them - mind-blowing stuff some of it....
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37887
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by semper occultus » Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:24 am
by Luther Blissett » Tue Dec 23, 2014 11:05 am
semper occultus » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:24 am wrote:...we've posted the preceding articles about this unwinding story on the PIE & Magpie docs thread Luther....you might be interested in them - mind-blowing stuff some of it....
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37887
by Jerky » Sat Dec 27, 2014 3:28 pm
by RocketMan » Sat Dec 27, 2014 7:41 pm
Jerky » Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:28 pm wrote:If anyone can wring a laugh out of the Saville travesty it's Robert Popper and Peter Serafinawicz (sp?), who in this episode of RADIO SPIRITWORLD - the only radio program broadcast from the land of the dead to the living - bring us David Frost interviewing Jimmy Saville in Hell. Enjoy!
https://soundcloud.com/user5316795/radi ... rostsavile
by coffin_dodger » Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:46 am
John Mann MP says scale of historical child abuse claims 'too many for state' BBC news 1 Jan 2015
The number of victims claiming historical child abuse could reach the tens of thousands and is too many for the state to cope with, an MP says.
John Mann, who has given a dossier of allegations of historical abuse to Scotland Yard, told the Today programme victims wanted a national institute.
The Labour MP for Bassetlaw said the government needed victims' confidence.
It comes after Baroness Butler-Sloss cautioned against giving victims too much influence over who led the probe.....
....Speaking to the Today programme, of which she was guest editor on Wednesday, Lady Butler-Sloss said "there has to be a victim voice on the panel" but the survivors should not be able to chair it themselves or choose who fills the position.
She said: "You need someone who knows how to run things and if you get someone from an obscure background, with no background of establishment, they'll find it very difficult and may not be able actually to produce the goods."
cont - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30647646
by AhabsOtherLeg » Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am
by AhabsOtherLeg » Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:58 am
SNP activist 'killed over child sex files'
A FIREBRAND SNP activist who died in mysterious circumstances was to expose a paedophile ring that would have brought down the Government, it was claimed last night.
Published: 00:01, Sun, November 30, 2014
By Paula Murray
Willie McRae was said to have discovered child abuse by cabinet ministers and other leading members of the establishment on both sides of the Border. Shortly before his death he was seen photocopying a dossier of names in case something should happen to him.
The copies are understood to have been posted to a number of close associates. Despite a lengthy inquiry, the Sunday Express has been unable to establish whether any copies of the alleged dossier are still in existence.
McRae never went public with his allegations as he was found shot dead in his car off a remote road in Wester Ross on April 6, 1985.
Some maintain he was murdered by the security services over his opposition to plans to dump nuclear waste in Scotland, while others have said he was silenced by drug smugglers.
Significantly, however, his death also fits the timeline of recent claims about Westminster perverts and a massive police cover-up of child abuse and murder in the early 1980s.
His death also came just months after the late Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens handed his own infamous paedophile dossier to then Home Secretary Leon Brittan – only for it to be lost or destroyed by Home Office officials.
Fionna Borders, whose late husband James was a barrister involved in a number of child abuse cases, said she was convinced that McRae was on the verge of “shaking the establishment” to the core when he lost his life.
Mrs Borders said she learned of McRae’s dossier from former police officer turned private investigator Iain Fraser, who died only a few weeks ago.
A close friend of McRae’s who had an office in the same building on Bath Street in Glasgow, Mr Fraser was hired to spy on his “bosom buddy” in 1985 by an anonymous client.
Mrs Borders said: “Willie McRae got that information, and being the kind of man he was, he could not just sit on it. Unfortunately he spoke of the list to somebody he should not have which was his downfall.
“It is easy to sound like a conspiracy theorist – but at times conspiracy theories are proven true.
“Why not stage a car accident, his Volvo wrapped around a tree? God knows that has been done in the past. No. It was made to look like suicide – except, of course, it wasn’t.
“It was a message to leave matters well alone, and those in the know took it just as it was intended.”
Another source close to Mr Fraser said he had learned of the existence of the alleged dossier from a member of staff in Mr McRae’s office.
Some years ago, McRae was linked with another document describing a network of high-ranking Scottish paedophiles – dubbed The Untouchables – based on the deathbed confession of child abuser James Gallogley. But this dossier was dismissed as a hoax.
Earlier this month, it emerged that Police Scotland has set up a team of detectives to investigate claims of child abuse involving the late Solicitor General Sir Nicholas Fairbairn MP and other high-ranking Scottish legal figures from the same era.
Mrs Borders said she believed McRae’s dossier named powerful men from both sides of the Border, and he was “well on his way” to going public.
Before leaving Glasgow for his cottage near Kintail, Wester Ross, the 62-year-old showed a briefcase of documents to a friend, PC Donald Morrison, and told him: “I’ve got them this time.”
However, despite phoning ahead to ask for the fire to be lit, he never made it to his destination.
Instead, his body was found the next morning off the A87, with a bullet wound to his head. A gun was near the car leading to the suicide verdict.
His briefcase or the documents it contained have never been found.
Mrs Borders added: “McRae had worked so hard to expose this disgusting cancer. He knew it was dangerous which is why he made the back-up copies – not that anything has ever come of them.
“He had been due to leave Glasgow much earlier than he did, but his tyres had been slashed. That’s not something that’s widely known.
“In those days nobody wanted to be on the Highland roads at night. There was nothing open after 9pm. Yet he only headed up the road at 6.30pm knowing it would take him until late to reach his destination. The only reason is somebody made sure he would be alone on the roads.”
Calls for a public inquiry have been unsuccessful despite the fact the gun had been fired twice and was found some distance from the car.
Furthermore, although McRae was not wearing gloves, there were no fingerprints on the firearm.
Just a few months after McRae’s death, Geoffrey Dickens spoke in the House of Commons about the dangers he had faced due to his attempt to expose powerful paedophiles.
He said: “Honourable Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening phone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home.
“Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer’s hit list.”
Dickens died in 1995 and his investigation was forgotten until the Jimmy Savile scandal led to a renewed interest in historic abuse.
Meanwhile, the retired policeman who was the last person to see Willie McRae alive last night said he too believed the solicitor had uncovered evidence about a powerful paedophile ring.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/541793 ... -sex-files
by cptmarginal » Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:24 am
cptmarginal » Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:43 pm wrote:http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/jimmy-savile-charitable-trust-continues-high-court-bid-block-compensation-scheme/governance/article/1306073Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust continues High Court bid to block compensation scheme
31 July 2014 by Sam Burne James
The trustees of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust are continuing their legal bid to block a compensation scheme for the disgraced broadcaster’s victims, because they say it could mean that more money goes to lawyers than to victims.
The trust was set up in 1985 to provide funds for the relief of poverty and sickness, and other charitable purposes, according to its entry on the Charity Commission’s register of charities.
According to its accounts, it was bequeathed the bulk of Savile’s estate, but will not receive this money until the matter of compensation for his victims has been concluded.
In February, the trustees of the charity went to the High Court to attempt to block a compensation scheme put together by the law firm Slater & Gordon, which represents more than 175 of those victims, and to have NatWest removed as the will’s executor.
The charity’s legal bid was rejected, but it applied for leave to appeal again this May.
This permission has now been granted by the High Court. A statement from the two trustees of the charity, prepared by its law firm PWT Advice, said its appeal had two aspects.
"First, we remain concerned by the amount of legal fees that NatWest has incurred (over £0.5m to date)," the statement said. "We are particularly concerned that NatWest’s lawyers took their fees from the estate without having any authority to do so at the time."
The second point, it said, was the fairness of the compensation scheme. "The current scheme gives the claimants’ lawyers an automatic right to claim fees of about £14,000 per claimant, irrespective of the amount the claimant receives," the statement said. "This could mean a claimant receives only a fraction of the amount paid to the lawyers."
This in turns means that more than £2m of the estate could be paid in legal fees, the statement said.
Jimmy Savile’s estate was initially believed to be worth more than £4m after his death in October 2011, but it is now valued at about £3.2m.
"It is our hope that we can protect the value of the estate by our application so that more money is available to pay to those who have proper claims against the estate," the trustees’ statement said. "As charity trustees, we also have an obligation to protect the funds that will go to charity, if there is anything left in the estate after paying the claims."
Jo Summers, a partner at PWT Advice, said: "The appeal will be heard in the Court of Appeal in the next court term, but we haven't got a date fixed yet. We're waiting for the court listing people to give us a date." The next legal term runs from 1 October to 19 December.
No one from Slater & Gordon or NatWest was immediately available for comment.
UK: Grounds For Hostility? The Removal Of Executors And The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust – Re Savile (Deceased) [2014] EWCA Civ 1632
Last Updated: 3 February 2015
Article by Scott Taylor
Introduction
Testators have the freedom to choose who they want to be the executors of their estate, whether this be family members, friends, professionals or even charities. The court is generally reluctant to interfere with the testamentary freedom of a deceased testator without justification.
Sometimes during the administration of an estate, executors and beneficiaries find themselves engaged in personal conflict and a hostile situation ensues, preventing the timely distribution of the deceased's assets. This is not solely confined to situations between squabbling siblings; there are a number of cases whereby beneficiaries do not agree with the actions being taken by independent or professional executors.
One such estate which has recently been under media scrutiny is that of Jimmy Savile, who died on 29 October 2011. The recent Court of Appeal decision in Re Savile (Deceased) serves as a warning to beneficiaries of the threshold required to remove an executor from his office, and the cost implications of getting it wrong. There are lessons to be learnt from the actions taken by the trustees of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, and charities should bear in mind the practical alternatives to court application ns when dealing with conflicts (or potential conflicts) with executors.
Why would an executor be removed?
Not all removals of executors are contentious; individually named executors may have personal or professional reasons for retiring as an executor, perhaps due to realising their inexperience or their unsuitability for the role, and will agree to step down by consent. There are statutory grounds by which an executor may be removed, such as the executor's refusal to act, being incapable to act by reason of illness or mental incapacity, or by bankruptcy. Further, there may also be grounds for removing executors where they have not administered the estate within a reasonable time or have caused undue delay.
Executors can be removed from their office if they are found to have been guilty of misconduct in their role. There are also situations which arise where executors end up in personal conflict with each other or with the beneficiaries of the estate, meaning that the administration of an estate cannot continue.
In special circumstances, the court has the power under s.116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to 'pass over' a nominated executor if it considers that it would be necessary or expedient to do so. The court has held that this power is for exceptional cases and is only possible before a Grant of Probate has been obtained. In order to replace an executor or terminate their appointment after obtaining a Grant of Probate, whether by agreement or through contentious proceedings, the Court will need to exercise its discretion under s.50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. Such an application to remove an executor can be made by a fellow executor or a beneficiary of the estate – and the latter is what happened in Re Savile.
Re Savile
Under his will, Jimmy Savile appointed NatWest as the sole executor of his estate, leaving a number of small legacies and lifetime interests to named individuals, with the vast majority of his estate (worth £3.3 million after expenses) going to the Charitable Trust. NatWest took out a Grant of Probate and began dealing with the administration of the estate. As may be familiar, an ITV documentary in October 2012 accused Jimmy Savile of having been a serial child abuser and sex offender. NatWest subsequently began to receive letters from a number of potential claimants seeking compensation from the estate for the personal injury sustained from the alleged assaults.
NatWest recognised that there were a vast number of potential claimants and there was a risk that the estate could become insolvent should many of the claims against the estate turn out to be meritorious. A meeting took place in March 2013 between NatWest, the Charitable Trust, representatives of the potential claimants, and other third party defendants (such as the BBC) to explore the agreement of a scheme to resolve the potential claims against the estate without the need to enter into costly court proceedings defending every claim. The Charitable Trust took a robust stance against the scheme, and accordingly were not invited by NatWest to a subsequent meeting at which the scheme was agreed.
As a result, in November 2013 the Charitable Trust issued an application to remove NatWest as the executors of the estate in favour of an impartial executor, on the basis that relations had broken down between NatWest and the beneficiaries so that they no longer retained confidence in NatWest to administer the estate due to (on the trustees' case) NatWest's failure to act in the interests of the beneficiaries.
Hostility and friction are not enough
When looking at the removal of an executor on the grounds of personal conflict, the court will take into account the proper administration of the estate and the welfare of the beneficiaries. On 1 April 2014, Sales J (in the High Court) dismissed the trustees' application to remove NatWest as executor and approved NatWest's proposed scheme. He stated that executors are involved in making judgments within the administration of an estate which attempt to strike a balance between competing interests, and stated that hostility and friction between executors and disappointed beneficiaries is not of itself a good ground to justify the executor's removal. In Sales J's view, NatWest and the Trust did have conflicting views on how to proceed, but NatWest took 'proper and reasonable judgments...about the best way to proceed to administer the estate, having proper regard to the interests of all those who may prove to have an entitlement in respect of it.' He therefore acquitted the bank of any improper hostility against the Trust, treating the disagreements as legitimate differences of opinion, and reiterating the broad discretion that executors have over the administration of an estate.
Sales J's decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2014. Lord Justice Patten, who delivered the judgment in the case, relied on the leading case in the removal of executors of Letterstedt v Broers, which stated that direct intervention by the court in the administration of an estate and the removal of an executor has to be 'justified by evidence that their continuation in office is likely to prove detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries'. He went further, saying that 'a lack of confidence or feelings of mistrust are not...sufficient in themselves to justify removal' unless they are likely to jeopardise the proper administration of the estate. Lord Justice Patten agreed with the findings of Sales J and dismissed the appeal. He believed there would be no benefit to any of the beneficiaries in changing the executor; the scheme to deal with potential claims had already been approved by the court and the future administration would consequently be 'largely mechanical in nature', meaning NatWest's views (and alleged hostility) towards the Trust would not have 'any material effect' on the administration of the estate.
As a result of the appeal having been dismissed, the Charitable Trust was ordered to pay NatWest's costs relating to defending the removal application.
Practical considerations for charities and charitable trusts
As with any case where there are tensions between trustees and beneficiaries, they will turn on the facts of the case and Re Savile is no exception. It is clear that mere hostility is not enough to justify the removal of an executor. The case highlighted that the court takes into account the practical difficulties in removing an executor against his will, and charities or charitable trusts who are beneficiaries of an estate should bear in mind the increased costs and potential added delays to the administration of an estate should another executor be appointed, which may not be in the charity's best interests.
Re Savile reiterates the importance of taking a reasoned approach to any potential conflicts with executors, whether lay individuals or professionals. Mediation of the issues involved could reduce the costs involved, maximising the available legacies for each beneficiary. Where litigation is looking a likely outcome, consideration should be given by charitable beneficiaries to a neutral, professional executor as a replacement. Each case will turn on its own facts and where hostility is anticipated or arises, seeking advice from professionals at the earliest stage could assist in reducing costs and thereby maximising charitable legacies.
by cptmarginal » Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:30 am
Prince Charles relied on Jimmy Savile as key aide who sat in on meetings and read over his speeches, claims controversial new biography
2 February 2015-Biography says Prince Charles deferred to Jimmy Savile for advice
-Charles: The Heart of a King' claims the Prince asked the now disgraced paedophile to read over his speeches and make any suggested changes
-The pair struck up a friendship in the 1970s after meeting at wheelchair sports charities and Prince asked him for advice in the 1980s and 1990s
-Previously claimed he asked Savile for advice about his marriage to the late Princess Diana, but Clarence House has denied the claim
-Controversial biography by Catherine Mayer also claims Prince Charles no longer wants to promote British arms sales in the Middle East
-The Prince tells ministers he 'doesn't like being used to market weaponry'
-Savile died in 2011 and was exposed as a prolific paedophile who abused his celebrity status and hospital contacts to abuse hundreds of victims
Prince Charles asked paedophile Jimmy Savile for advice on health policy and to read over his speeches, a controversial new biography has claimed.
The Prince of Wales and Savile were known to have had a working relationship after they met in the late 1970s while supporting wheelchair sports charities and is has long been claimed that the Prince relied on the now disgraced DJ for advice during the 1980s and 1990s.
In the biography, Charles: The Heart of a King, it is claimed that Savile was regular visitor to Highgrove and St James' Palace and was once at a meeting at Highgrove being held to discuss closures to emergency services.
The book, by journalist Catherine Mayer, also claims the Prince once deferred to Savile to look over a speech he was due to give and make any changes, the Telegraph reported.
'One source tells of an occasion when the Prince asked his famous occasional adviser to read over a speech he was due to give on a topic unrelated to health care or any field in which Savile had expertise,' wrote Mayer. She said Savile did not make any changes on that occasion.
The book sheds new light on the extent to which the Prince relied on Savile as his confidant.
Savile died in 2011 and was exposed as a prolific paedophile, using his celebrity status to prey on child victims. He is said to have abused hundreds of victims, taking advantage of having free run of Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Broadmoor and Leeds General Infirmary.
The book also deals with Prince Charles' relationships, revealing that he had doubts about his wedding to Princess Diana and on the eve of the ceremony said 'I can't do it.'
Sarah Goodall, a former Lady Clerk to the Prince previously claimed in an autobiography that Savile gave marriage guidance counselling to the Prince and Princess of Wales. This claim was denied by Clarence House.
The biography also says the Prince no longer wants to promote the interests of British arms firms in the Middle East.
Prince Charles, who like other members of the Royal Family has close links to many ruling families in the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia, told ministers that he 'doesn't like being used to market weaponry'.
Last year BAE Systems announced a deal to sell Typhoon jets to the Saudis the day after the Prince had finished a visit to the country.
Although aides insisted the deal was 'never discussed', anti-arms campaigners said it was 'clear that Prince Charles had been used by the UK Government and BAE Systems as an arms dealer'. The book claims his objections were made 'discreetly.'
The prince will visit the country for two days next week - for the 12th time - as part of a whirlwind tour of Arabia, also taking in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE.
Mayer wrote: 'A source close to the Prince says he doesn't like being used to market weaponry and now sidesteps such activities wherever possible. '
The writer highlights Charles's appearance at an arms fair in Dubai several years ago, which he defended in his 1994 documentary with Jonathan Dimbleby by arguing that he was boosting trades and if the UK didn't sell them 'as a deterrent', then someone else would.
Charles is regarded as a particularly valuable asset by diplomats who believe he can gain access at the very highest level to Arab rulers in a way politicians simple cannot.
A Clarence House spokesman said last night: 'The Prince of Wales' upcoming visit to the Middle East is not about sales of defence equipment and is not essentially commercial.
'The Prince of Wales undertakes official visits on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
'The five countries The Prince is visiting in the Middle East are important allies and key partners to the UK.
'This visit to the Middle East like others is to strengthen relationships and highlight stability in the region.
'The programme has been designed by the FCO, its Middle East Posts and Clarence House to make the most of The Prince's knowledge and expertise, and to highlight both HRHs concerns and those of the UK Government about conflict in the region.'
Prime Minister David Cameron defended Britain's close relationship with Saudi Arabia yesterday – despite its appalling human rights record – saying it had given information 'which helped save British lives'.
Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday, saying it was important to maintain a relationship with the kingdom despite its poor record on human rights.
The British government's decision to fly the Union flag at half-mast on public buildings following the death of Saudi's King Abdullah last month drew criticism human rights campaigners and several prominent British politicians.
Asked about this decision during a question and answer session on Sky news on Monday, Cameron said the countries had a long standing relationship and it was 'a mark of respect'.
'We have a relationship with Saudi Arabia partly over things like trying to achieve peace in the Middle East but crucially over fighting terrorism ... Since I have been prime minister a piece of information that we have been given by that country has saved potentially hundreds of lives here in Britain,' he said.
While King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz pursued a modernising legacy of cautious social and economic reform, against a backdrop of regional turmoil the authorities had in the last year issued tougher penalties against all forms of dissent.
A sentence of a thousand lashes on a blogger accused off offences including insulting Islam, cyber crime and disobeying his father has also caused international outrage.
'We don't agree with lots of things that the Saudis do ... we make very clear those differences,' Cameron said.
'I would argue if you have a relationship with them and you have a way of talking to them they are more likely to listen to you than if you just cut yourself off.'
by cptmarginal » Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:39 am
Stoke Mandeville Hospital doctor guilty of raping and molesting string of young girls at the same time Jimmy Savile was abusing patients
6 February 2015-Michael Salmon, 80, found guilty of two rapes and nine indecent assaults
-Raped 16-year-old at his home after she came to him for an abortion
-Attacked girls at Stoke Mandeville Hospital as parents sat behind screen
-Jimmy Savile targeted patients at same hospital around the same time
-However court was told two offenders weren't known to one another
A paediatrician who worked in the hospital at the centre of the Jimmy Savile scandal has been found guilty of a series of rapes and sexual assaults against seriously ill young girls.
Dr Michael Salmon, now 80, was today convicted of nine indecent assaults and two rapes carried out against six girls aged 11 to 18, between 1973 and 1988.
Reading Crown Court heard that he raped one girl at his home after she went to him aged 16 for treatment, telling her 'one good turn deserves another.'
The jury was also told he carried out assaults in his consulting room at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire, while the girls' parents waited just yards away behind a screen.
The prosecution told how he fondled girls' breasts while claiming to check for cancer, and carried out intimate examinations without gloves after patients came to him complaining of migraines.
He was also found guilty of two rapes at his home when a 16-year-old he had seen regularly for stomach problems came to him asking for an abortion after fearing she was pregnant.
The court was previously told that after administering a painful procedure to get rid of the child he then held her down and raped her while she cried and screamed in pain.
The victim recalled feeling 'dizzy' and 'light-headed' as she was asked to lie back on the bed for a check-up. Salmon then told her 'one good turn deserves another' before attacking her.
'I don't remember much - I just closed my eyes until it was over,' she told the court.
'I couldn't take in what he meant and then he dropped his trousers and I see he has got nothing on apart from his shirt and he's coming towards me, he's on me,' she said, her voice breaking as she told how she screamed, 'No.'
After the attack he dropped her at a bus stop where she caught a bus home and bled on her white summer dress during the journey.
He then raped the same girl a second time after telling her to come back because she may have been pregnant with twins.
The jury found him guilty of both rapes, but found him not guilty of using an instrument to procure and abortion.
He was acquitted of one further count of rape against one victim, and two indecent assaults against a further teenager.
The abuse concerned the time Salmon was a leading paediatrician at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, with much of it taking place within the hospital itself.
Allegations of sex assaults carried out by another doctor at the hospital were also recently investigated by Thames Valley Police until it was discovered he had died.
An NHS report into historic abuse carried out at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in light of the Savile allegations was delayed last year to gather new evidence and has yet to be published.
16 Dec 2008
Abdulla was born in Aylesbury, Bucks, while his father was training at Stoke Mandeville Hospital on a scholarship from the Iraqi government and his mother working as a pharmacist.
His father went on to work at King's College Hospital, south London and took exams to become a member of the Royal College of Physicians, finishing with the highest marks in the country.
The following year the family returned to Iraq where Abdulla was brought up in what he described as a "very posh" suburb of Baghdad and his family was friendly with a number of politicians associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
by Col. Quisp » Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:14 am
by DrEvil » Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:44 am
by cptmarginal » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:22 am
Prince Charles relied on Jimmy Savile as key aide who sat in on meetings and read over his speeches, claims controversial new biography
Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne, found himself embroiled today in an embarrassing public dispute over his habit of writing to government ministers with letters tilting at red tape, political correctness and the creeping invasion of a ''blame culture'' in Britain.
The dispute began over the weekend when newspapers leaked what were said to be remarks by the prince in support of a huge rural protest march in London on Sunday defending fox hunting, which may be banned, and calling for better services in the countryside. In those comments, said to have been made in a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, Charles reportedly said Britain's farmers would face less discrimination if they were gay or black.
That raised not just eyebrows but also protests from gay and black advocacy groups. Unidentified aides to the prince told newspapers that he was ''seething'' that the letter had been leaked. But the issue seemed to be subsiding until a new set of leaked letters to Lord Irvine, the lord chancellor and a close ally of Mr. Blair, appeared in newspapers today.
These letters covered such matters as the European Convention on Human Rights, rules on military training exercises and care volunteers in private homes, increasing litigiousness among Britons and what Charles sees as the growing intrusiveness of social regulations.
''I and countless others dread the very real and growing prospect of an American-style personal injury 'culture' becoming ever more prevalent in this country,'' he was quoted as writing to Lord Irvine, who is said to have complained of being ''bombarded'' by letters from the prince.
''Such a culture can only lead, ultimately, to an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion, let alone the real fear of taking decisions that might lead to legal action,'' the prince said.
He bemoaned ''the degree to which our lives are becoming ruled by a truly absurd degree of politically correct interference.''
by semper occultus » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:58 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests
