If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Queen's Evidence
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So the Burrell case brings a whole new meaning to the expression "turing Queen's evidence"...
Personally I think this case stinks to high heaven. I'm starting to wonder just what it was that she wanted to keep quiet, just what is it that Burrell was going to say, that meant that he needed to be stopped from sitting in the witness box...
It seem incredulous that not only did an educated person like the Queen not realise the significance of her evidence, but that it has taken her so long to mention it.
The Palace claims that she has never been briefed. Yeah right. I'd put money on daily updates, hell it was a case that could have done the Monarchy serious damage...
Personally I think this case stinks to high heaven. I'm starting to wonder just what it was that she wanted to keep quiet, just what is it that Burrell was going to say, that meant that he needed to be stopped from sitting in the witness box...
It seem incredulous that not only did an educated person like the Queen not realise the significance of her evidence, but that it has taken her so long to mention it.
The Palace claims that she has never been briefed. Yeah right. I'd put money on daily updates, hell it was a case that could have done the Monarchy serious damage...
0
Comments
You might well be right about Mrs Windsor being afraid of what the butler might have told in the trial. You would've thought the Royals had run out of skeletons in the closet by now.
I think the Queen should be arrested for withholding evidence and wasting police time.
The upper members of the royal family are immune from prosecution.
If such a thing was true, why would he confirm it in a trial which had nothing to do with that issue?
Foil hats out.....major league baseball is watching us.
I think that there are other stories which they want to keep quiet. Things that emphasise their total lack of reality, I suspect drug abuse is in there somewhere, as well as sexual promiscuity, from both the Royals and Diana.
Whilst we suspect much, we have never had anything proven, so it is still conjecture. Burrell would have known, and been in a position to embarrass many of the people who upset Diana.
Payback.
Interesting that many stories comdemn the police for the failure of the trial. I'm still waiting for the Palace to come up with something realistic...the entire fault for this collapse lies with them.
I didn't know that... that is shocking!
that cant be right, what about all the kings and queens that have been arrested historically.
charles 1st, etc.
To be able to call the Queen into court there would need to be a coup - such as Cromwell's - which led to her being de-throned.
In fact, she can't even be called as a witness. The events detailed here have made a huge legal issue. Burrell could never have called her as a witness, and apparently his case could have depended on it. Since last week there has been a huge legal debate about the impact of this case, in that a fair trial could have been denied Burrell based on archaic case law...
The constitutional problems are more of a worry to me. The Queen is chief prosecutor, head of the executive and judiciary. All criminal cases are brought in the name of Regina, and detained persons are detained on the authoirty of the monarch. Therefore the monarch cannot be tried for crimes, and cannot be compelled to become a witness- although she can voluntarily enter the witness box.
Technically The Queen is the head of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, meaning that powers are not split. Its only custom that the leader of the winning party in a general election becomes PM, she is within her rights to choose Charles Kennedy, me, anyone, as PM. She doesnt even have to choose a PM. She has to authorise all Acts of Parliament. She is, legally, in complete control. She is above the law as she makes the law, she IS the law.
In practise, of course, she isnt above the law at all. But she only CHOOSES to not be to avoid constitutional crisis, i.e. shed be deposed if she didnt behave.
But, back to the main issue. Instead of attacking the Monarchy for defending an innocent man, albeit delayedly, attack the CPS for bringing such a stupid case to court. The CPS neglected to tell Buck House what was going on to avoid criticisms of them becoming involved underhandedly- the Director of Public Prosecutions even admitted this- and so the blame lies squarely at the feet of the CPS. The DPP should be sacked for this.
As far as I know only the Queen has immunity...
The CPS were trying a case it thought was just. The Queen knew differently and could have stopped this case two years ago. Had she spoken up then, the case wouldn't have gone any further, because the CPS would have realised that they didn't have a case. That she didn't meant that they had a duty to try Burrell...
As for them briefing the Queen, is that really their role? Surely she has advisors for that, and in view of the constitutional issues the CPS/Police wouldn't have interviewed her automatically. Just like you and I, it is our duty to cone forward if we are aware of any evidence which may convict or free someone.
Having said that, i'm just going to sit back and wait 50 years (or maybe 100) until the file becomes public and is released for all to see.
Sitting here... waiting.... sitting...........waiting.....
I have no sympathy for the CPS because of one simple fact- he referred, on several occasions, to a meeting with the Queen, but the CPS and the police didnt arse themselves to check this out. Although, in fairness, Burrells defence lawyers didnt either.
Its a huge case of cock-ups, but, for once, the mud being slung at the Royal family is unfair. Its not their fault the CPS have proven themselves, yet again, to be incompetent.
Thora Hird wouldn't have to put up with this shit
Hence the argument in the law arena at the moment - apparently it could be a breach of our Human Rights...although I'm not sure how so...
more that she is above the law; what if you needed to call her as a material witness? The argument goes that as the Crown, she needs immunity to carry out the duties she has. Thereby avoiding, let's say, being called to take the stand in this case, or any other, which would interfere with her job.
Theres no way that it could be, otherwise every diplomat in the world will suddenly be infringing our human rights.
The Monarch isnt IMMUNE from prosecution, she IS the prosecution. Its an important difference. It also means that individual ministers cannot be prosecuted for decsions they make, rather that the department they work for can be sued.
Dont change something unless its broken. And this certain isnt.
Apparently he didn't want to mention it to his legal team in deferrence to the Queen :eek:
I'm not even going to talk about "the dark forces", although I suspect that I may be one of them