| Username |
Post |
| protean |
Posted
on 21-Nov-02 01:01 PM
Here's an interesting case of a Britsh Royal being convicted.
It would be great if we reached the a point in our land where the Royal could be challenged and prosecuted. Those who abused their powers for personal gain ought to be investigated and if found guitly as charged be punished. However, what I see until now is just the vilification of (a very corrupt) set of leaders from the Congress Party and their prosecution.
I'm willing to give this adminstration some time to take the necessary [& corective] steps to question the integrity of other possible abusers. However, it should not just use this as a vindictive means of dispeling an democratically elected set of representatives and thereby obfuscating the virtues of democracy to justify their ends.
When will the actions of the operators from the Panchayat era, and those of the current Prince be questioned? Will it?
That day--if and when it dawns--could be a turning point in our history.
Or am I being too nebulous here?
Here's the piece:
_________________________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-Royal-Prosecution.html
LONDON (AP) -- Princess Anne pleaded guilty Thursday to allowing her ``placid, playful'' English bull terrier to run loose and attack two children. She is the first member of the royal family in modern times to be convicted of a criminal offense.
Anne, the only daughter of Queen Elizabeth II, was fined $785 and ordered to pay $393 in compensation for violating the Dangerous Dogs Act.
But a judge spared the life of the bull terrier, Dotty, ordering her to undergo training and wear a leash in public places.
The children's family said the decision ``is neither moral nor just.''
``We do not think justice has been done,'' they said in a statement. ``The dog is still free and is a danger to society.''
District Judge Penelope Hewitt warned that the dog would have to be destroyed if it misbehaved again.
``I consider that the owners are extremely responsible and if an order is made I have no doubt they will adhere to it,'' Hewitt said.
``It nevertheless is a big responsibility and they have to be aware that if anything goes wrong, if there is another repeat of what happened on Easter Monday then that is the end of it.''
Prosecutors described in court how a dog belonging to the princess and her husband, Commodore Tim Laurence, bit two children aged 7 and 12 who were walking in Windsor Great Park near Windsor Castle on April 1. The children cannot be identified for legal reasons.
Anne admitted the offense during a hearing at East Berkshire Magistrates Court in Slough, 20 miles west of London. Prosecutors dropped the charge against her husband.
The princess, who wore a red pleated skirt, white blouse and blue blazer, stood while the judge passed sentence.
The offense carried a maximum penalty of a $7,900 fine and six months' imprisonment.
It is extremely rare for members of the royal family to appear in court.
King Charles I was tried for treason in 1649 and executed.
More recently, several royals have received tickets for traffic offenses, and Princess Margaret's son Viscount Linley appeared in court in the 1980s for a speeding offense.
The 52-year-old princess -- who appeared on court lists as Anne Elizabeth Alice Laurence -- arrived at court in a black Range Rover. She, 47-year-old Laurence and her children Zara and Peter were ushered past massed photographers and through the entrance by security guards.
In court, prosecutor Anthony Smith said the dog had chased and jumped at the children as they were cycling in the park with another child and the father of one of the boys.
The 12-year-old suffered a bite on the collarbone and two bites to his left leg, while the 7-year-old had scratches on his right forearm, back and left leg.
Smith said Princess Anne had apologized for her dog's behavior and had driven the children to hospital.
Canine psychologist Roger Mugford told the court that 3-year-old Dotty should not be put down and described her as ``an utterly placid, playful dog.''
Princess Anne's lawyer, Hugo Keith, said Dotty was ``a good-natured dog.''
``All those who know the dog have found her exceptionally good and wholly lacking in malice,'' he said. ``She is described by one person who knows her well as a 'big puppy.'''
Keith said the dog had only ``nipped'' the children and that the boys would make a full recovery.
But the children's family said the youngsters had been traumatized by the attack.
The judge said the children ``did suffer considerably'' from their run-in with Dotty.
``It was a very, very unfortunate episode and I can only hope that the children, as time goes by, will become more amenable to dogs,'' she said.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 21-Nov-02 01:09 PM
So this is the kind of CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY that Nepal should strive for--genuine justice for all! What good is a "democracy" that places the members of the royal family above the law?
Once again, we never had democracy in Nepal, so we can't blame the failures of the past 12 years on it.
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 21-Nov-02 05:59 PM
"Once again, we never had democracy in Nepal, so we can't blame the failures of the past 12 years on it."
True.
The past 12 years have not seen a "constitutional monarchy."
Noone should be above the law.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 21-Nov-02 08:41 PM
The King and hs family should abide by the constittuion and should be under the law.
As pointed our by Paramendra in another thread, Gyanendra doesn't seem to be taking the steps to seriously address the Maoist issue.
Instead, I see him strengthening his pro palace coterie to justify and preserve his claim to power.
Will he come under the constitution and work as a team to address the grave nature of this problem in our country?
I don't see him proactively working on this solution.
Or will he just try to take the citizens for a ride? May be.
Of utmost importance today is the working together with intllectuals, political parties, nd Maoists ,and try to find the middle ground to solve this problem,which is our nation's problem.
If we see him continually strengthening his team, and failing to address the problem of the nation (while being above the law), then we're bound for worst things to come.
He should try NOT to alienate the parties and common citizens ,which would be a way of giving more and more opportunities for Maoists to pave their way in to winning their battle.
What if Maoists are able to launch a 5 days bandh, followed by a 14 days bandh?
Couldn't it be just conceivable given the way things are shaping up currently? They'll then start winning their terror war not just in villages --which they seemed to have done at some of the villages--, but also at cities.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 21-Nov-02 09:29 PM
We will see one day, Proteanji.
We have seen a lot of unthinkables already, haven't we?
|
| protean |
Posted
on 22-Nov-02 12:43 PM
We should be able to see some change one of these days.
I would want to see the Panches, and Paras being brought to court for their past (mis)deeds. Will we get to that stage?? May be.
But, the other worrying factor is the paralyzing of the institutions and commerce these Maobadis who are interested in bringing complete anarchy in the nation.
I just read that they are planning to lauch an indefinite Bandh of all the educational institutions. It is not inconceivable.
The future of the students are at STAKE here. What are they thinking??
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2002/november/arc528.htm#13
|
