Josh's joshings     'The buck starts here'  Josh

"The finest and most perceptive blog in the entire Universe" - Jayson (not Tony) Blair

Email me *

How easy is it to recognise irony.
A. Pedant

Big boys (& girls)

British Journalism Review*
The Guardian*
Melbourne Age*

Worth a look

Charlie's Diary*
The Feral Eye*
Green fairy*
I live on your visits*
Jak - Vancouver*
Quantum Tea*
Reflections in D minor*

Drabness is a state of mind
A. Pedant

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Clues from the injunction

Today, the Guardian has been allowed to report that Michael Fawcett ('The Fence' & something else, it would appear) was the beneficiary of an injunction forbidding the Mail on Sunday from printing an allegation about the said Michael Fawcett. Are you with me so far? Currently, although the beneficiary of the injunction can at last be reported, the nature of the allegation cannot. According to at least one TV report, lawyers for Michael Fawcett (pronounced 'force it', according to Private Eye), maintain that the injunction was granted because the allegation was untrue. I wonder if the marines would believe that.

Fortuitously, if we refer back to Josh on Sunday 17th November, almost a year ago, this paragraph appeared in relation to the Burrell trial and goings on at St James's Palace:
Judging by the number of hits on this weblog during the last few days, there are many people trying to find out the identity of the alleged rapist on Prince Charles's staff. I had earlier blogged that the Italian newspaper La Republica seemed to have got it right. That paper's nomination was Michael Fawcett, Charles's [former] personal assistant. I can now offer further 'evidence' on the matter, given George Smith's 'reticence'.
George Smith was, of course, a witness to the alleged homosexual rape but was probably bought off to avoid a scandal. We must deduce, therefore that the allegation that everyone knows but cannot print is that Fawcett is (was) the homosexual rapist on Charles's staff. Still with me?

Now, it seems to me that the libel laws on Airstrip One are so strong that the normal approach for an innocent man, rather than seeking an injunction, would be to say 'OK Mr Editor, you print that and I'll sue you for a great deal of money.' This would normally be sufficient to restrain the press, wouldn't it? On the other hand, if the allegation is true...

I do not think it will be too long before the allegation becomes common knowledge, whether or not it is true (and I had to put that conditional bit in there to satisfy my extensive team of lawyers - Ed.). The ancillary matter - the involvement of Prince Charles in keeping the allegation secret - is, as they say, 'not likely to benefit the Royal (Royle?) family at all'.

As for all these comments about Charles's bisexuality and the revelation that Prince Andrew has been having a relationship with a high-class prostitute, one should seriously consider if these are part of a smokescreeen to divert attention from the real issue. And then there's 'Woman has baby by Caesarean section' shock (Sophie). Who cares about any of this, true or false? It's the illegal things, like perverting the course of justice, that ought to do for 'em.

Comments: Post a Comment