A Teen Tried To Shoot Queen Elizabeth In 1981, Intelligence Report Says
New Zealand police say they are re-examining an apparent assassination attempt against Queen Elizabeth II. Declassified documents from New Zealand's intelligence service, newly released to an investigative journalist at the news website Stuff, indicate that there may have been a cover-up after teenager Christopher Lewis fired at the queen's motorcade in Dunedin. At the time, officials suggested to journalists that the bang of Lewis' gun was a sign falling over or firecrackers going off.
"Lewis did indeed originally intend to assassinate the queen, however did not have a suitable vantage point from which to fire, nor a sufficiently high-powered rifle for the range from the target," one declassified memo states.
[...] The 17-year-old was never charged with attempted murder or with treason, according to the news investigation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @03:04PM (9 children)
Why would anyone want to assassinate the queen? Honestly, the UK would probably be better off if they put her back in charge instead of just having her as a figurehead. And they'd probably be much better off now if she had been in power all along, instead of some of the crappy PMs they've had.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday March 05 2018, @03:17PM (3 children)
Apparently the assassin was a career criminal who wanted to become a high-level terrorist among British Neo-Nazis and thought bumping off Elizabeth II was a good way of building his resume.
Elizabeth II is not the only royal to be targeted by violent criminals: Her daughter Princess Anne was nearly kidnapped by a guy wanting a few million pounds ransom.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 05 2018, @04:38PM (1 child)
Yeah, bumping off a figurehead is unlikely to achieve much on a political level. It could serve as a symbolic act, but that's about it. If the perp was an Islamic terrorist, or a state sponsored assassin from Gaddafi's Libya or the Irish Republic Army, that could stir things up.
But she's not the Archduke of Austria Hungary and Europe isn't the powder keg it was in 1914. Emperor Franz Joseph, who didn't even like his heir, was so old he had to delegate Austria's response to younger people, who it turned out were much too hot blooded. He felt their ultimatum to Serbia was extreme, but let them go ahead with it, must have lacked the energy to make them tone it down.
It sounds like the perp was a run of the mill criminally insane loner who wanted the notoriety and infamy, and didn't even have a political agenda.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @05:18PM
I don't think he wanted to achieve much on a political level, given that his motive was to pad his killer resume, not affect political change.
Or, you know, maybe the would-be assassin wanted to be a high-level terrorist among British Neo-Nazis and thought bumping off the queen would build his resume.
Excerpts from a Metro.co.uk [metro.co.uk] story from last month:
So, it's possible that he wanted to be a high-level terrorist among British Neo-Nazis and thought bumping off the queen would build his resume. And not, say, affect political change as a loner.
No, but he was charged with "possessing a firearm in a public place, discharging a firearm and a further 15 charges including aggravated robbery and arson" and jailed for three years.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:00PM
Seems like NZ high schools need better career consoulers
(Score: 4, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 05 2018, @04:06PM (1 child)
Don’t forget Britain’s great and Queen Elizabeth is a great monarch. Many people want her to become a dictator. Britain would be better off, and the world would be better off. 100%. She’s now queen for life. And look, she was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by takyon on Monday March 05 2018, @04:11PM
https://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/artist-reimagines-donald-trump-and-kanye-west-as-drag-queens/ [unilad.co.uk]
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/remember-donald-trump-motorboating-rudy-giuliani-in-drag-remember-it_us_57bcb196e4b00d9c3a1a8a02 [huffingtonpost.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by therainingmonkey on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:18AM (2 children)
Arguments usually go something like: "If the monarch owns the country, it's in their interests to make it a good country!"
In case the absurdity isn't immediately obvious, let me refute:
Monarchy has been tried before. There's a reason most places got rid of their monarchs.
Open almost any history book to see what monarchism leads to. The results have been very well documented.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)
Monarchy has been tried before. There's a reason most places got rid of their monarchs.
Monarchy has been tried before, and was a big success. The reign of Elizabeth I is considered a golden age in Britain, for example, and Marcus Aurelius is considered an excellent emperor in ancient Roman times. Many monarchs have been excellent, and that's why I said this queen would have made a better ruler than most of the PMs that served during her time.
Anyone who has a clue about governmental forms would acknowledge that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. It's far more efficient than a democratic republic and eliminates the problem of the people at the very top being corrupt or not having the nation's interest at heart.
The fatal flaw with monarchism is that great rulers eventually get old and die, and their heirs usually suck. That's the big reason we don't have them much any more. Marcus Aurelius was great, as I said, but his son Commodus was a disaster (it didn't play out quite the way as portrayed in "Gladiator"; Commodus was assassinated in his bathtub). Elizabeth I was great (and James I after her seemed to be good too), but she was preceded by Mary Queen of Scots, who was horrible and responsible for much oppression and murder (hence her moniker "Bloody Mary"). Of course, with democratic governments you have good and not-so-good leaders, but they have less power, and it's easier to get rid of them. This is why this form of government won out: over the long term, you get more consistent results. So when I say monarchy was "a success", the problem is that that success is time-limited, and can change quickly as soon as a new monarch takes over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @01:58PM
Mary "queen of Scots" was never Queen of England. Mary Tudor, ( Mary I ), was "bloody Mary".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nobu_the_bard on Monday March 05 2018, @03:41PM (9 children)
An assassination from 37 years ago was not successful!!
The assassin was incompetent.
Police did their jobs quickly and contained the threat.
Police and security forces avoided mass panic. He was charged with something matching what he actually accomplished.
They kept an eye on the guy for future problems.
After awhile they declassified the information when it was no longer useful to keep classified.
This sounds pretty much like what they're supposed to be doing to me.
If anything, I could criticize how long they kept the information classified or that they weren't a little more aggressive with pursuing him for his non-assassination-related crimes before he decided to do some regular old fashioned murder, but I haven't read enough detail to be sure about my judging them on those points.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @05:23PM (5 children)
According to another article [metro.co.uk] on the case, that included sending him away on all-expense-paid vacations (taxpayer expense) when the Queen came to town, just to make sure he didn't go try to kill her again, which would be bad for tourism.
Well, mostly.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Bot on Monday March 05 2018, @05:48PM
I have a cunning plan:
> become a resident in rome
> fake an assassination attempt against the pope
> have police sending you on vacation every week
> no ???
> PROFIT!!!
the only problem I foresee is the current pope being Francis, so you must take care having no actual Catholics discover your attempt and helping you out...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday March 05 2018, @06:08PM (3 children)
"According to another article [metro.co.uk] on the case, that included sending him away on all-expense-paid vacations (taxpayer expense) "
A couple grand for a 'vacation'; vs assigning a security detail to keep a close eye on him. A bit ass-backwards for justice, but probably quite a pragmatic and economically efficient solution.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @07:23PM (2 children)
One might hope that with the Queen's life hanging in the balance there was a security detail involved and not simply a travel agent.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday March 05 2018, @08:23PM (1 child)
As long as they make sure he gets on the plane, and gets to his destination. They don't need round the clock surveillance, in 3 shifts, if he's on an island a thousand miles away from the action. Its not like he's a crafy super-criminal; he's an incompetent nutter. Get him far enough away and just keep tabs on him.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday March 06 2018, @02:30AM
They sent him to Great Barrier Island. [wikipedia.org]
It's in the Hauraki Gulf, so not far from the largest New Zealand city, Auckland. Too far to swim however, and if the police decided you should have a nice holiday, you would probably be stuck there until they came and got you.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 05 2018, @09:02PM
I am acquainted with the lawyer defending him when he died in prison in 1997.
In fact he committed suicide by electrocuting himself using the lawyer's spare TV, loaned to him while he was held on remand.
The lawyer told me that Christopher Lewis may have been the most brilliant person he has ever met, although he had some terrible mental health problems which went largely undiagnosed and untreated.
I think he was being tried for murder, so not a nice person, all things considered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @07:37AM (1 child)
Not sure if they did such a good job of keeping an eye on him:
But I guess not all nutjobs who claim to have tried to kill the Queen should be prosecuted for murder. Might actually encourage more nutjobs to try it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by qzm on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:35AM
https://tvnz.co.nz/content/70975/2591764.xhtml [tvnz.co.nz]
You may want to read this first, before you get too sure of the facts.
Basically the police paid a known associate, who was a convicted (quite horrible..) murder $30,000 to testify that Lewis did it.
Now, who knows, but that was pretty much the whole evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @02:27AM (1 child)
If it'd been successful, I'd have completed my Machin collection already.
(that's a stamp collecting joke)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:29AM
(anyone correcting any part of that gets a slap)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves