Monday, July 11, 2011

Did the News of the World conspire in treason?


It is reported (and here) that News of the World journalists paid Royal Protection officers for the private contact details of members of the Royal Family, including those of the Queen. We read: ‘The information included phone numbers and tips about the movements and activities of the Queen, Prince Philip and staff in a serious breach of national security.’

This goes beyond corruption: it is treachery at the heart of the Establishment. Such betrayal endangers the lives of the Queen and other members of the Royal Family, and constitutes a grave risk to national security.

Treason is defined as ‘violation by a subject of allegiance to the sovereign or to the state’. Section Three of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 asserts that condemnation is incurred ‘If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

Can it not be argued in law that those Royal Protection officers who accepted bribes have conspired with journalists and violated their allegiance to the Sovereign? Have they not imagined the disclosure of information which may indeed have compromised the Crown? It is clear they invented and devised this; it is also clear they intended it. For what other reason would such details be sold?

28 Comments:

Blogger red dave said...

"‘The information included ... tips about the movements and activities of the Queen"

Isn't that what Fredo got whacked for in the godfather part 2?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeZ5GpcG4sc

11 July 2011 at 14:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you know of Republic Campaign? They have a website and are on Facebook. Not saying they have anything to do with this but they are very much in favour and would have cheered them on!

11 July 2011 at 15:10  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

If true, then YES
It was Treason - and should be punished accordingly.
( As incidentally should every Prime Minster from 1979 to the present date - for lowering our defences to the point of collapse )

11 July 2011 at 15:54  
Anonymous Tony B said...

So have you changed your mind about the importance of the story now? Again?

11 July 2011 at 15:55  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tony B,

His Grace is capable of changing his mind in the light of new evidence. This is manifestly a new revelation.

11 July 2011 at 16:08  
Blogger DAD said...

Treason is defined as ‘violation by a subject of allegiance to the sovereign or to the state’. Section Three of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 asserts that condemnation is incurred ‘If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

According to John Major and others, HM the Queen is now 'a citizen of the EU'. This is real treason, but the DPP will do nothing to bring it to court.

Perhaps violence and rebellion is the only answer.

11 July 2011 at 16:24  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

An 82 year old bloke gets tazered by Her Majestic Police Force.

11 July 2011 at 16:27  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Could Mr Rupert Murdoch, Papal Knight of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great have been prompted to leave the US in such unseemly haste because prison time over there is so harsh?
Conspiracy, fraud, bribery, corruption, FCC crimes. Let's say fifty years.
I'll bet he hasn't got a return ticket.

11 July 2011 at 16:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace, methinks you are worrying too much about the mote of the bribery of the Royal Protection Officers and missing the beam of the Sovereign's (and her Government's) own treason in selling us out to foreign powers.

Ray Griffin

11 July 2011 at 16:33  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Marcellus:
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Horatio:
Heaven will direct it.

11 July 2011 at 16:46  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Calm down, calm down!

11 July 2011 at 16:57  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Can we trust the Met to investigate itself with due rigour? - lets face it this Country of ours is riddled with cronyism and ineptitude at the very top.

The whole issue should be made Murdoch-proof and handed over to MI5, backed up by the military.

11 July 2011 at 16:59  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"...to deprive or depose the Queen... from the style, honour, or royal name..."

(The long title of the 1848 act was An Act for the better Security of the Crown and Government of the United Kingdom.)

Republicanism and betrayal of sovereignty.

Mr Rupert Murdoch of Newscorp has a tendency to promote republicanism, or more specifically the abolition of the hereditary monarchy of the United Kingdom. It must be time for prosecuting authorities to be working on preparing indictments for conspiracy to commit treason under the Act.

The editor of the Guardian newspaper also has a tendency to promote republicanism, and not long ago commenced proceedings in the High Court, which came on appeal to the House of Lords, where Lord Steyn expressed the view that:

"the part of section 3 of the 1848 Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that section 3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal." (Regina v. H.M. Attorney General (Appellant) ex parte Rusbridger and another (Respondents) [2003] UKHL 38 on appeal from: [2002] EWCA Civ 397).

This looks like another reason for those who oppose the Human Rights Act to maintain their position; and for those who would have the Act amended, to consider whether repeal in toto would be better suited to the laws and customs of this country.

But, for reasons touched on by commenters above, there is a pressing need for lawful process against persons who betray the sovereignty of this country to other powers by way of treaty and internal legislation, especially those holding office under the Crown (excepting always the Monarch who has acted upon the advice of such office-holders).

Once sovereignty has been restored, the passing of an Act of Free and General Pardon, Indemnity, and Oblivion would not be unprecedented.

11 July 2011 at 17:14  
Anonymous Smells a Rat said...

IanCad said...
"... Mr Rupert Murdoch, Papal Knight of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great ..."

The plot thickens indeed! Rebellion and treason from Scotland and Rome!

Murdoch was/is Anglican and has been divorced three times.

In 1967 he married his second wife, Anna Torv, a Scottish-born Roman Catholic. During his marriage, licit in the eyes of the Church, Murdoch was awarded the KSG, a papal honour.

The Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great (Ordo Sancti Gregorii Magni), is one of the five orders of knighthood of the Holy See. The order is rarely bestowed on non-Catholics. It is given in recognition of personal service to the Holy See, unusual labours, support of the Holy See, and the good example set in their communities and country.

Murdoch divorced Anna Torv in 1999 and remarried, aged 68 years, 19 days later.

Is Murdoch in cahots with the Vatican and Scottish Roman CatholicS to ursurp British Church and State Sovereignty?

11 July 2011 at 17:14  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

Can you commit treason against a traitor?

11 July 2011 at 17:28  
Anonymous tony b said...

Your Grace,

I am glad. Are you retracting your earlier retraction and apology ;-)

11 July 2011 at 17:55  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

There have been many acts of treason over the years and nothing is ever done about it so don't hold your breath over any action being taken in respect of this.

As for the tazering of an 82 year old, what utter cowardice by our boys (and girls) in blue. They are no doubt trained to use a tazer now before common sense or putting themselves in harms way although how much harm could an elderly gentleman do to a supposedly strong Policeman.

11 July 2011 at 18:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tony b said...
"Your Grace,
I am glad. Are you retracting your earlier retraction and apology ;-)"

History repeating itself.

11 July 2011 at 18:45  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

Archbishop Cranmenr yeaterday you accussed the BBC of having "a vested interest in blackening the reputation of Rupert Murdoch and frustrating his planned takeover of BskyB" and suggested this was behind the level of coverage to this story.

Being a man of integrity, will you now be aplogising to the BBC?

11 July 2011 at 18:54  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Present blog and company excepted, the quantity of platitudinous banalities about media ethics now being publicised, at home and abroad, has a likeness to Potemkin villages or movie sets hastily constructed for the passing moment, enough for a NotW-balls column in the manner of Private Eye's TM "Colemanballs".

The issue is whether or not Mr Murdoch's opponents will be able to say, sooner or later, "Gotcha" under the constitution of the federal republic of the United States of America.

11 July 2011 at 19:26  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Is leaving a notlet saying "sorry there is no money left" , for the incoming chancellor , treason ?

If not the law should be ammended.

On reflection perhaps the treaty of maastricht should be added.

11 July 2011 at 19:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament refusing the oath of allegiance. Treason?

11 July 2011 at 20:08  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Selling us out to the EU is the bigger treason. Or did someone commit lèse majesté by forging Brenda's signature?

12 July 2011 at 00:16  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Treason like blasphemy is a word that belongs to a different era. Perhaps if we were in a state of war with another country it might have some relevance but passing on an internal telephone directory is hardly a beheading offence. Let’s not try and put the royals back on the pedestal that they fell of years ago. Mrs Queen deserves the same respect and protection by the law that we should all expect, but no more.

12 July 2011 at 09:59  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Dear Mr Graham Davis,

What a try on. Just when it seemed nothing could get sillier along comes a 9:59, a wind up as in breaking wind, too silly for what other commenters might call a "wind up" as in clockwork.

Have you considered the actualities of the underlying problem: UK government transferring vast sums of pounds sterling to Eurozone bailout operation. Where does that "money" come from? Where does it go?

Your more rational than thou stance implies that you may be better able to offer answers fit for those you seem to consider to be backward, superstitious and possibly in some respects feeble minded.

Are you not aware that the state of affairs is in part due to the influence of Mr Rupert Murdoch (now common knowledge) which has been holding in thrall our party politicians, in government and out, such that they behave as if backward, superstitious and possibly in some respects feeble minded (to say the least)?

12 July 2011 at 11:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talking of treason, I discovered today that Edward Heath's remains are buried at Salisbury Saint Mary's.- Which also houses one of the original Magna Carta manuscripts.
-Elias

12 July 2011 at 19:13  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Murdoch used what was then Britain's biggest circulation newspaper to vilify the Royal Family as part of the campaign by his client, Margaret Thatcher, to usurp the monarchical and royal roles on the national and international stages.

Murdoch used his puppet governments on opposite sides of the world to legislate over the heads of the rather less pliable Australian states in order to abolish the right of the Westminster Parliament to legislate for them, abolish the British Government's consultative role in the appointment of their Governors, and abolish the right of Her Majesty's Australian subjects to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.

And Murdoch renounced even his nominal allegiance to the Queen in order to circumvent the entirely sensible ban on foreign ownership of television stations in the United States.

So he probably thought that he could get away with corrupting the Royal Protection Squad and, by the looks of it, tapping the Queen's telephone. In fact, he probably thought that he had already got away with it.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

13 July 2011 at 13:29  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Toby the Jug @ 18:54

How has His Grace's position changed???

It is quite clear that the BBC/Guardian et al, are indeed 'in for the kill' - more than one battle being fought here.

14 July 2011 at 02:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older