In article <9l3210$l7b$[email protected]>, posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:42:35' on 'Sat, 11 Aug 2001', Cromwell <[email protected]> writes:I was married to him. He was very deluded.
" Klaus Wagner......... did not 'stalk' Princess Diana in the sense of >threatening violence or ever
coming close to doing so, or imagining that she was romantically
spurning him, or whatever it is that 'stalkers' do - not as far as I am aware, anyway."
(Banana post)
But just what has banana done to aquaint himself with the facts? What >research did he undertake, before posting this bold statement? Is he not >aware that there have been major changes in English law on the question of >'stalking'Not trying very hard to avoid looking like an idiot then, Geoff?
I did read a press article the other day that said that the English
judicial authorities were getting annoyed that the anti-stalking law was being used not only by celebrities and other rich people but also by proletarians, for example against people who make their lives a misery
by keeping coming round their house to harass them, perhaps even
threatening violence against them. Some idiot was quoted as saying that anti-stalking law should not be used by people with 'poor social skills'
- by which of course he meant, by people who are working class.
I was reminded of the calls for people on social security benefits to
give back a large part of their winnings if they win the lottery - a
message which, if stated honestly, would sound like this: 'No, no no!
The lottery's not about the rich giving money to the poor, it's about
the poor giving money to the rich!' In a way it is hilarious that the
money from the lottery that gets spent on 'public' causes gets spent on
stuff that obviously serves mainly the rich, such as opera houses, and
most of the required construction work is wrapped up by a very small
group of architectural firms. Who mentioned trouser legs?
and Klaus Wagner's campaign to 'recruit' Diana was key inMmm, how's Geoff going to organise the exposition of his thesis? Oh how
altering it? The answer to the question is straighforward but not simple, >it deserves further explanation.
the intelligent reader awaits.
But have no doubt, Klaus Wagner was a
stalker.
Turning firstlyOuch! Above, I was tempted mockingly to write "Moving now to the matter of..." but thought I wouldn't, because it would sound too trite as a
piece of mockery.
A case of overestimation of the opponent?
to the legal part of the question,There was no legal part of the question that *I* was dealing with. I
don't take my definition of 'stalker' from the law. My statement that
Geoff quotes was very carefully written.
The authors comment further,
" In March 1996, Dr Klaus Wagner was found not guilty of similar behaviour >and again was not bound over. He is a compulsive "stalker" of both the Queen >and Diana, Princess of Wales.In other words these idiotic authors label Klaus Wagner as a stalker
without defining the term.
On the occasion in question, he was holding avery well, does it?
placard outside Buckingham Palace with the words "The Queen is the Devil". Doesn't seem as though the esteemed authors have done their 'research'
Video footage made it clear that the crowd around him acted peacefully and >entirely ignored him. Consequently his behaviour, however distasteful, was >not likely to cause a breach of the peace. On the contrary, it provoked no >response whatsoever."
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, became law in March of that year. >Under this new legislation, I have no doubt that Klaus would have been found >guilty....a conclusion for which the esteemed author Geoff provides no evidence
or argument whatsoever.
'Klaus did not 'stalk' Princess Diana in the sense of threatening violence >or ever coming close to doing so'
But the new law addresses this issue.Why not go further and cite title as well as author?
Violence doesn't have to be involved.
The paper which I've already quoted,
provides some helpful information on
this subject,
"Rapid developments in the criminal law relating to harassment took place in >the summer of 1996. The decision in R v Burstow [1996] TLR 30 July >established the doctrine of psychological assault. This enables a defendant >to be convicted of assault even though he or she may not have applied direct >physical force. Consequently these offences can take in campaigns of >non-physical harassment provided such campaigns cause psychiatric or >psychological harm and impair a victim's health accordingly."That is not 'information' on the 'subject'. English law doesn't actually define stalking! I was using the term, there is no consensus on its
meaning, therefore I gave my definition, and if Geoff reads especially carefully, he will notice that having done so I included a clause which
left the definition open. Sure, if one defines 'stalking' to include
what Klaus Wagner does, then he was 'stalking'. If you define it to
include repeated tailored marketing by mail or over the telephone, then
that is 'stalking' too.
And what about the law itself. How does it broach this issue?What issue? The issue of the definition of 'stalking'? It doesn't even
touch upon that 'issue'!
BTW the usage of the term 'stalking' prior to its use in the media to describe something media stars and other celebrities don't like, mainly occurred in relation to approaching hunted animals under cover, and
walking with the gait often used therein. Not being seen by the target
when locating them and following them was important.
" 4. - (1) A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on
at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of >an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will >cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of
conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that >violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in >possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would >cause the other so to fear on that occasion."
and again,
2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing >the person distress.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/97040--a.htm#1
Between January and July 1996, Klaus got arrested numerous times, he jumped >up and down in front of Diana's car, he stuck his file under her windscreen >wiper and wrote volumes of letters. He wrote to people related to her. >Klaus wrote to friends of Diana and to people who worked for her. Yet he >got no response. What should this have told him?. That Diana was not >interested in his campaign nor interested in his 'mission'!!
Wagners antics were unwelcome. Klaus Wagner wasSome contributors to this newsgroup have considered some other
stalking....
contributors' contributions to be unwelcome too.
While we are on the question of violence, it's interesting to note Klaus >Wagners feelings about Diana's lawyer Anthony Julius, because it reveals his >attitude toward violence and Klaus anti-semitism,
"Anthony Jewlius deserves deathHere we agree, Geoff.
for his role in the Conspiracy to gradually kill Princess Diana ! Read this >carefully, Mr. Jewlius, you have been sentenced to death ! Nowhere safe for >you to go any more, you may be executed at any time, any place by any >person"
(Diana's Killer Anthony Julius Date: 1999/03/03)
--
banana
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:49:59 -0700 (PDT), S W
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, 12 August 2001 at 21:12:02 UTC+1, banana wrote:
[...]
I was married to him. He was very deluded.
You waited over two years to comment? Why? I'm really curious.
On Sunday, 12 August 2001 at 21:12:02 UTC+1, banana wrote:
I was married to him. He was very deluded.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 168:17:18 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,822 |