Cannydc wrote:Fletch wrote:Cannydc wrote:Fletch wrote:Gotcha, so not covered up at all then.
So, despite a credible witness that the birds were shot, and from inside the (high walled) Sandringham Estate, and an admission that only Harry +2 were shooting there at the time (confirmed easily by security staff, as they would need to know exactly who was shooting) there was no prosecution. So yes, it certainly was a cover up.
But using your standards, if they aren't found guilty by Judge/Jury, then it didn't happen.
Not a cover up BTW. A cover up is a blackout on reporting the incident by the msm/Gov. This is not covered up in any way, just not prosecuted because of who they are...just like the Clintons.
That is your definition. The real one is - Cover-up....an attempt to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.
And that, Fletch, is PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED. And you can't be found guilty of a crime if the circumstances are covered up to stop any prosecution.
It's reality canny. There is no cover up, it was reported in mainstream media. It's in your face lawlessness. The few are above prosecution, they don't care that you know, you're nothing in the grand scheme of things, as are the majority.