Originally Posted by Moany Liza:
“As I said before, she does pay tax.”
She didn't for decades and only agreed to pay some (and we don't know whether what she pays is in any way even close to what her tax bill should be) because attention was brought to it and it was expedient for her to agree to something.
Do you think it's good behaviour for a head of state to negotiate for themselves, using their position, to be above the law, for massive personal financial gain?
Quote:
“You refer to her "piss poor behaviour" regarding the Burrell case but you have not actually stated what your criticism of her is.
Why can't you just say categorically what it is that you're accusing her of, instead of refering to it coyly as "piss poor behaviour" and then pretending you've actually stated what it was
Unless you make it clear what you think she has done wrong and why, how can anyone be sure what your specific point is?”
I assume that most people are aware of what happened. The court case was reported on extensively. It should be pretty obvious that I can't be suggesting that Bet lied (as you asked) because how on earth would I know. However I can and did say, clearly and with no 'coyly' about it, that her behaviour, going on all the facts that were reported, was very poor indeed. Piss poor, one could say. Crap. Very bad. Disgraceful. Etc. Anyone else behaving like that would have been widely criticised.
If you spent that particular year out of the country, in a coma or on some kind of a news blackout, the overview is this. Some time after Di's death, Paul Burrell was accused of stealing items from her home. He insisted that Bet Windsor had given him her permission to take the items away for safekeeping. She said nothing and a very prominent court case began. As it continued, and as things started to look not so great for Burrell, it emerged that once on the stand he was going to be very frank about what he knew about the royal family. At that point Bet suddenly, and after weeks and weeks of amnesia, remembered giving her permission and that was that.
So my incredibly obvious criticism of her behaviour is that she was either not bothered enough about dragging an innocent man through the courts to have a good think about probably the only proper conversation she had had with him, or she stepped in and lied to stop her family's dirty laundry being washed in public, and maybe even freed a guilty man by doing so. I don't know which, so I'm not suggesting she lied, but either way, crappy. Etc.