Say what you like about our Royals but they are fearless in the face of wee feathered creatures, particularly when armed with a rifle ( Prince Harry that is not the Birds )
Harry just like his fearless family likes nothing better than slaughtering beautiful wild creatures for fun, I wrote before about how his wretched grandfather Phil. bravely shot a tiger which had been caught and tethered, Harry is making the old duffer proud.
Two rare protected birds of prey (hen harriers) were being watched by bird lovers as they flew over part of the royal estate when two shots rang out and the birds fell to the ground the observers immediately reported the crime to the authorities who carried out an investigation, no dead birds were found but two bird brained humans were, one was our noble Prince Harry who was interviewed and claimed innocence, the 'old bill' believed him, honestly.
It transpired that Harry boy was out in that area shooting birds at that time with a chum, it was established that there was no one else in the area, but he denied responsibility, ( 'Final', 'Extra', 'two rare birds commit suicide on royal estate' ) the Rozzers said the investigation is over but they are not looking for anyone else, Rozzerspeak for he's as guilty as hell but, he is a prince.
If one isn't falling in and out of taxis drunk as a skunk and dressed as a Nazi what else is there for one to do, I blame the family, how do you expect a lad to turn out with a family like that, no parenting skills whatsoever, would an ASBO be in order ? after all it's likely to be the only qualification he will ever get.
Have the police been warned off ? is it Harry's famous charm and pleasant nature which won them over ? To paraphrase Tom Stoppard,
"This is a British murder inquiry and some degree of justice must be seen to be more or less done".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
Pity he wasn't out shooting Socialists.
So what it was only a bloody bird.
Quite right about Harry, but spoiled by your deranged rant about the courage of Prince Philip and the Royals in general. (Give me the source of your tiger story)
To back up your lies, you quite deliberately ignore Philip's wartime record in the RN - joined at 18, Mentioned in Despatches and served throughout the war.
Then we have Andrew and his helicopter in the Falklands.
Before these, we had George VI serving at Jutland and Uncle Edward VIII awarded the MC, both in WW1.
In addition, the Duke of Kent was killed whilst a serving member of the RAF during WW11.
In short, Councillor, the Royal family have shown that they are prepared to pay the blood price of privilege.
You, on the other hand, whilst delighted to enjoy the privilege of leeching off the state as a councillor, refuse to buy a poppy and at the same time, offer sympathy to Mrs Gentle.
Councillor, lying hypocrite doesn't even begin to cover it.
I'm no fan of the monarchy but on an estate that size is possible to establish who was shooting other than those like Harry who had permission to do so?
First off the whole "tied a tiger to a tree" thing is unsubstantiated. Indeed the only person saying that is you. Yet another article of faith handed to you.
Second, the police found no evidence of anything at all. The only "evidence" came from the "witnesses" who are environmentalists. No physical evidence, no other witnesses, one word against the other. So what would you have them do? Arrest someone on their hunch? Are you honestly promoting a police state Terry?
hawker harrier - or fellow parasites.
anon - only a bird but worth far more than the imbecile who shot it.
(Rabbie) 07/11/07 - The tiger event happened on a tour of India in the fifties you should be able to trace it, I remember as a lad everybody laughing at him, ours was an anti royal household.
I don't remember mentioning the royals in war time.
The royals are expensive parasites IMO and I explained why I don't buy poppies. Is there any chance that you might cease exploiting Mrs. Gentle, try some dignity kind of thing.
slim shady - the royal estate conceded that Harry and his chum were the only ones there.
(RfS) 09:37- Have you no dignity at all ? When the police say they interviewed someone, took no action and aren't looking for anyone else and the royal estate concede that he was the only one out shooting, it's only the really craven grovelers who are left defending the little cretin.
If you check reports about Philip the big game hunter from the fifties you will likely find it, but you would have to stop tugging your forelock to do that.
Terry, we have been over this. Searches turn up nothing. Oh, sorry if you do this google search it turns up us taking the piss out you for buying into such an obvious lie. You cannot cite your source of the story (something I would do as a matter of urgency if you want people to stop laughing at you) and instead try to spread some lies about. Again Terry, the only person saying this is you.
And if we read this story we see in fact that as I pointed out before there was not enough evidence to bring charges. There is not even evidence that a crime has been committed. Added to that the witnesses cannot explain other shots heard before the three were in the area.
As I said before by publishing this you are calling for "something, anything" to be done "about Harry". You simply want someone locked up because you don't like them. And that my friend is a police state.
***two shots rang out and the birds fell to the ground the observers immediately reported the crime to the authorities who carried out an investigation, no dead birds were found***
So, no-one can even prove that the birds even existed let alone shot and killed?
RFS - If you search enough you will find that Phil. was involved in two Tiger shoots, the first was when he shot a Tiger which was tied up and the second was when he was unable to kill another captured Tiger, because his trigger finger was injured, not because he didn't want to.
"As I said before by publishing this you are calling for "something, anything" to be done "about Harry"
Not so, I'm just calling for him to be treated the same way as any other drunken yob, what is wrong with that ?. After all I pay for him don't I.
And I pay for you but you did not turn up to council today.
The point here is Terry that he IS being treated like everyone else. Lack of evidence of ANY kind means no action can be taken. What you are asking for is for him to be arrested because you don't like him. Police state.
And I have searched for Phil so now will you consider citing your source to show me up for the lazy reactionary I am?
Where were you then TK?
Not at the 6-weekly full council meeting held in Renfrewshire?
Any chance you will explain?
PA - That's possible I suppose, it depends on how gullible you are.
***That's possible I suppose***
It was a straight yes or no question, either there is tangible verifiable proof or there isn't.
Eye witness accounts never carry as much weight as quantifiable evidence, i.e. bodies of two dead birds.
***it depends on how gullible you are.***
So very true
Why were you not at the full council meeting today Terry. Mr williams was also noted for his absence.
Were you at the gym or something?
I am informed by a friend who is a councillor that you didn't see to your responsibilties today by going to the full council meeting.
Yet you have managed to find the time today (just before 10.00 am) to get on your pc and post approved blogs from others and just after 12.00 noon today to post your replies.
Where are your priorities Mr Kelly and why as a taxpayer am I funding your time with a salary to post blogs as opposed to attending important council meeting such as this.
You should be ashamed of yourself
RFS - I have asked you to explain what I was doing today that I should be ashamed of ? Any chance of you letting me know. .
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 14:44 - You should learn to accept when you have walked straight on to a punch.
(edgar) 14:58 - read RFS he might tell you, he seems to know.
"I have asked you to explain what I was doing today that I should be ashamed of"
I have posted that information elsewhere, go and look it up for yourself and dont be so lazy.
I note you have changed the subject though. Do you now admit your plans for a police state lie in ruins?
(Alex) 15:09 -- I had trouble docking my yacht.
***You should learn to accept when you have walked straight on to a punch.***
Huh?
Sometimes you do baffle me Terry.
Anyhoo, a straight yes or no answer please:
Was there any substantiated, documented, verifiable evidence that a crime had been committed - other than the word of two supposed eye-witnesses?
(RfS) 16:22 - That's a climb down.
"That's a climb down"
Only in your world. Have you found my allegation yet? Have you done your own research or do you hold me to higher standards than yourself?
So what should Harry have been arrested for? Walking while being Royal?
PA - When you are in a hole. As I said it depends how gullible you are.
RFS - Why do you want your allegation to be a secret ?
Harry should have been arrested for shooting protected birds.
A straight yes or no answer please Terry
Ah, Mutt - Terry is implying that the police have corruptly suppressed evidence in this case.
No doubt he will back this up with a complaint to the IPCC?
"RFS - Why do you want your allegation to be a secret ?
Harry should have been arrested for shooting protected birds."
It is not a secret, I published it on another blog. Go look it up for yourself. Start with a certain other site that contains your picture. Here, let me lead you by the hand to enlightenment.
On what evidence should Harry have been arrested?
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 16:46 -
Explain to me why you are entitled to a yes no or any other kind of answer.
I'm happy to allow you to answer as you see fit, because I'm not concerned about what you might come up with, what are you afraid of ?
RFS - He was there he was shooting birds, he and his pal were the only ones there witnesses saw and heard the incident.
No, there were 3 of them. The witnesses only heard the gunshots not the shooters and no other evidence exists. There has not even bee time to audit the hen harrier population to see if any are actually missing.
And even if they had the remains of the two birds 2 into 3 does not go so we would be left with a cut throat defence.
On the other hand you want harry arrested on evidence a lot less substantial than has been produced in the manser assault case. You are advocating a police state where people are locked up because you don't like them.
(RfS) 17:31 - I want Harry to be treated like everyone else and the rest of his freeloading family as well, there must be something they can do surely, something simple instead of sucking the nation dry.
No, you didn't mention the Royals in war time. To do so would have destroyed the thrust of your article, wouldn't it Coucillor?
What you did say was "They are fearless in the face of wee feathered creatures."
What I did was point out that the family had a history of being pretty damned fearless when it counted.
And you still haven't sourced the 'tiger' story.
And as the initial mention of Mrs Gentle was by you, in your 'Lovely War' article, any exploitation is all yours Councillor.
***Explain to me why you are entitled to a yes no or any other kind of answer.***
I am not "entitled" to anything, however this is a debate - started by you - with each side making point and counterpoint.
You have made a statement in support of your side of the debate. I am asking you to clarify certain aspects of that statement. The question asked only has 2 possible answers "yes" or "no" : Was there any substantiated, documented, verifiable evidence that a crime had been committed - other than the word of two supposed eye-witnesses?
If you do not want to give straight answer to simple, politely put questions, I would recomend you desist from allowing coments on your blog.
I do hope I haven't gone on to much or been long-winded enough for you to lose track of the conversation, I really would appreciate an answer.
'After all I pay for him don't I.'
You also pay for people who live on benefits, we also pay for you.
Does receiving money from the state mean you have no right to fair treatment from the police?
"I want Harry to be treated like everyone else"
Well he has been. An allegation was made, Harry was questioned, no evidence has been presented. The police determine there is no case to answer. Just as one would expect in every case where an alleged crime has been reported.
"...and the rest of his freeloading family as well,..."
But you don't want them treated like everyone else do you. Your prejudice and bitterness is there for all to see.
(Rabbie) 08/11/07 -
"the royal family had a history of being pretty damned fearless when it counted." How do you know that royal flunky ?
My old man and my uncles fought in WW2 and they all admit to being terrified, if only they were royal they would have been fearless, is it not about time you got off your knees.
The Tiger story was famous in the fifties.
I mentioned Mrs. Gentle as an example of how people use others whom they care nothing about as you are doing now.
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 08/11/07 - I've given you an answer, it may not be to your taste, so what ? If you want to argue/debate with me then don't try to lay down your rules, I will decide for myself how I answer, I don't take instructions from you.
Are you a policeman ? army officer ? school teacher ? prison officer ? they can usually demand a 'yes or no' and get away with it.
(Delilah) 08/11/07 - I pay for him to live on spectacular benefits and he doesn't even get an interview from the DSS for not seeking employment, is that fair ?
"Does receiving money from the state mean you have no right to fair treatment from the police?" No absolutely not but he has received great treatment hasn't he would you or I get away with that ?
***I've given you an answer, it may not be to your taste, so what ?***
Now you see Terry, I was not "demanding" anything. The question itself was phrased in such a way (that any person with even a mediocre grasp of the English language would know) that there are only two pertinent answers - yes or no.
By choosing a vague "depends on how gullible you are" answer, it appears you are attempting to avoid giving an answer which will damage your argument.
So in light of your accusation of criminal wrong-doing aimed at a member of the Royal Family I ask again. Is there any substantiated, documented evidence that a crime was committed - beyond the word of supposed eyewitnesses?
***would you or I get away with that ?***
If there was no evidence that a crime had even been committed, then yes we would.
(Hawker Harrier) 09:26 - We've done this I think he was guilty and he was let off because of who he is.
What is wrong with taking people off benefits if they are able to work, I'll grant you they would be a challenge trying to train them to do a job but we should at least try.
PA _ done this.
PA - And again.
***PA _ done this.***
Your evasion (aversion) of giving an appropriate answer to this questions betrays more than if you actually answered it.
You really would not fare that well against Paxman would you?
"We've done this I think he was guilty and he was let off because of who he is."
Oh, so you're judge, jury and executioner now?
You would see HRH punished without any probable cause and without habeas corpus - whatever happened to innocent until proven guily?
Or does that only apply to the Palestinians, Iranians and ANC?
PA - I'm not dealing with Paxman I'm dealing with you and that's a doddle.
(Hawker Harrier) 14:08 - I believe he did it, that hardly makes me unique the country let out a collective horse laugh and said what do you expect he's prince Harry.
Why do you feel the need to bow and scrape to a fellow human being ?
"I believe he did it,"
So what? You want him charged on that?
Police.
State.
"Why do you feel the need to bow and scrape to a fellow human being ?"
Why don't you tell us?
(RfS) 14:59 - I keep forgetting about having to explain things to you - I believe he did it and they let him off because of who he is.
***I believe he did it and they let him off because of who he is***
Any sort of corruption of our Police Service is not to be tolerated - regardless of who the "beneficiary" is.
As such, this matter should be raised with the IPCC. If you are not willing/unable to do so, please give me all the pertinent material, evidence, etc and I will raise a complaint with the IPCC and any other relevant organisations.
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 16:01 -
I appreciate your concern but, the matter is now Sub Judice I have already actioned this.
***I have already actioned this.***
Are you saying you HAVE raised this with IPCC?
If so, please provide us with details so we can keep an eye on developments.
'Sub Judice?'
Nay Bonny Lad, the IPPC is not part of the judiciary, so your complaint cannot be Sub Judice.
Trust me - I wanted to be a lawyer, but we was working class and poor.
Or are you telling porkies about complaining?
***I believe he did it and they let him off because of who he is***
Would this not also apply to Euan Anthony Blair? In 2000, at the tender age of 16, he was found by police, incapable of walking in Leicester Square, having spent the night celebrating the completion of his GCSEs with friends. After being taken to a police station, he gave a false name, an old address, and a false date of birth that would have made him 18.
Not only was he guilty of procuring alcohol under the legal age to do so, he was "drunk and disorderly" and in supplying a false name, age and address, guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Yet "somehow" he was neither prosecuted nor formally cautioned?
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 09/11/07 -
I won't and you can't make me !
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 12/11/07 -
I take it this means you agree that they let him away with it then ?
***I won't and you can't make me !***
Bwah haw haw haw haw haw
That just sums up the childlike attitude I believe ALL politicians exhibit!
***I take it this means you agree that they let him away with it then ?***
No, because there is no proof a crime was committed, let alone that Herr Harry was involved.
The comment was to shed further light your contention that there is one rule for "privileged" people and another for the rest of us.
Given there was, in the case of Euan Blair, more than ample evidence of his transgression one can only assume Mr Blair Jnr was let off because of who his father is (or rather was at them time).
As you claim only "privileged" people get this treatment from the police, we can conclude that being a family member of a serving Prime Minister puts one in the same "privileged" class as member sof the Royal Family regardless of which political leanings the PM has.
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 15:10 -
I was having a laugh, same as the story about complaining to the police, you are clearly very naieve and I will have to make allowances for you.
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 15:18 - You might well be right but, I think when it comes to the Royal fools it's more blatant.
***You might well be right but, I think when it comes to the Royal fools it's more blatant.***
So you are conceding that Tony Blair and his family fall into the same "privileged" category as the Royal Family, rugger buggers and Army Algernon's.
How does that sit with the "Working Class Hero" ethos you claim the Labour Party holds to?
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 13/11/07 - no one falls into the same privileged category as the Royals using such an argument just makes you look like an idiot.
I saw some discussion earlier about your theory of Prince Philip having a tiger tied to a tree so that he could shoot it. The version of the story I heard, from a more authoritive source than your blog, I have to say, is that it was Diana that Prince Philip had tied to a tree to make it easier to shoot her.
anon - Philip n the Tiger, yes.
I long for the old days when we had a real monarchy, characterised by their enthusism for slaughtering each other.
Post a Comment