Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Royal in blackmail plot named
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
In The Know |
JK2006 wrote:
The reason for secrecy ITK is quite right - blackmail victims (Royal or otherwise) are always given and deserve anonymity.
Thanks for that JK. I've not really been following the story and didn't realise it was a blackmail plot (and of course blackmail victims should have their identity kept secret).
BUT ... what is the difference between selling a story to a newspaper (for gain) and selling the same story to the "victim" (to prevent its publication)?
Pretty dodgy ground I think. Perhaps we should ask Max - I'm sure he would know !!! |
|
JK2006 |
The reason for secrecy ITK is quite right - blackmail victims (Royal or otherwise) are always given and deserve anonymity.
Unlike false accusers who, I believe, deserve to be named and jailed.
And yes, Anthony - that happened in my trial several times and I was furious - how can a jury be expected to "put something out of their minds" when it has been proven totally false? It's an evil legal trick. |
|
Anthony |
The Cat wrote:
I have to hold my hand up and admit I haven't a clue who it is.
You're not alone, Cat, nor have I.
I have always thought it strange how judges ask juries to disregard things, as if something can be unsaid or unread just because the legal process has demanded it. Very odd. |
|
zooloo |
I just Googled it out of curiosity after reading this thread.
If I were on the Jury I think I would too - although what difference does it make who he is?
Unfortunately "Don't look at that that" is a great way to spark curiosity.
 |
|
In The Know |
PS - His father - also rumoured to be gay - was alleged to have said "thats enough of that business" after he had produced the heir and spare ! |
|
|
|
