Leading QC calls for fresh investigation into Diana death.quiry

[hackey lad]

 

ha ha ha , you cheeky monkey . Any thoughts on the Diana thread ?

 

Thought not

Edited August 27, 2017 by nikki-red
fixed the quote

[redfox]

you have so eloquently put into words everything that I would have said , but you put it better

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2017 at 19:03 ----------

 

 

the joe bloggs at orgreave were backed by a very wealthy union , with an axe to grind

 

 

So you know who funded him then ?

 

Axe to grind - I am not surprised they had an axe to grind given that every single one of those charged had the case against them stopped - oh I wonder who did that ? Yes, you've guessed it - the prosecution chucked it - hardly surprising given the evidence (but you know all about the evidence don't you)

 

It is remarkable that none of the officers who gave evidence were prosecuted for the plain and obvious lies that were told.

 

Did you forget the rotherham people ?

Or do not want to mention that they were all acquitted because the jury took the view they were defending themselves against racists?

[I1L2T3]

No - that's what you may have taken from the media attention which most likely informed your view.

 

How many people have you met that said they truly admired princess Diana before or since she died?

 

Well, Let me tell you this. I drove from Sheffield to North Wales while the funeral was in progress. The TV audience for the funeral was 32 million and only one other broadcast ever beat that. My drive was epic, and there was hardly another car on the road.

 

Loads of people admired her, and loads of people I know. Seriously you're talking rubbish on this. Just admit it

[Guest makapaka]

Well, Let me tell you this. I drove from Sheffield to North Wales while the funeral was in progress. The TV audience for the funeral was 32 million and only one other broadcast ever beat that. My drive was epic, and there was hardly another car on the road.

 

Loads of people admired her, and loads of people I know. Seriously you're talking rubbish on this. Just admit it

 

Loads of people were caught up in a media sponsored grief-out.

 

Millions of people watch all sorts on tv - it's not indicative of peoples opinion. I watched it - didn't admire her.

 

I'm not celebrating her death or anything - it's sad - but people watched cos the nation was whipped up into a frenzy. What were all these things she did that people admired?

 

If you'd asked the average person on the street their opinion on her before she died it may not have been universally negative but it wouldn't have been one of genuine admiration.

[Anna B]

Loads of people were caught up in a media sponsored grief-out.

 

Millions of people watch all sorts on tv - it's not indicative of peoples opinion. I watched it - didn't admire her.

 

I'm not celebrating her death or anything - it's sad - but people watched cos the nation was whipped up into a frenzy. What were all these things she did that people admired?

 

If you'd asked the average person on the street their opinion on her before she died it may not have been universally negative but it wouldn't have been one of genuine admiration.

 

Diana was undoubtedly incredibly popular and a lose cannon as far as the Establishment were concerned. That made her very dangerous, - she knew where the bodies were buried, and had given plenty of hints that she was prepared to let the cat out of the bag if it suited her.

 

She was also interfering in politics with her landmines campaign. Arms are one of our biggest exports, (although that wasn't well known at the time,) and Charles' friends who were also politicians and on the queen's privy council were heavily involved with their own armaments businesses.

 

And the mother of our future king had a taste for Muslim men. At the time this was unthinkable in Establishment circles. She'd carefully kept Hasnet Kahn under wraps, but was prepared to go public with Dodi who was the son of a slightly dodgy chancer who had his own personal axe to grind against the Royal family.

 

And Charles wanted to marry Camilla.

 

All these seem much more trivial now, but then, as far as the Establishment were concerned, any one of these could have brought down the monarchy, let alone all of them put together. And one thing our monarchy has demonstrated often enough is their ruthlessness when it comes to self preservation and survival.

 

The Establishment found themselves in unprecedented territory. Times were different then, the establishment still hide bound by ancient tradition and protocols, and used to having the cloak of secrecy and rank, (not to mention the secret services,) to cover their tracks.

 

This is why I think they thought they could get away with murder. And I think a lot of the population thought so too, which is why Diana's death was thought by many many people to be suspicious, and why the mood turned very ugly towards the Royal family after her death, even before Diana's letter came to light (which wasn't until some years later) This rumbled on for years until an inquest had to be called. But all the clues were there, hidden in plain sight, like the character assassination of witnesses, and the failure to call or cross examine them.

 

After the inquest there was a concerted effort to airbrush her out of history.

But it keeps coming back to haunt them, and will continue to do so until there is a satisfactory and thorough enquiry and all the lingering questions are answered.

 

Eventually the truth will out.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Anna B

[ECCOnoob]

Diana was undoubtedly incredibly popular and a lose cannon as far as the Establishment were concerned. That made her very dangerous, - she knew where the bodies were buried, and had given plenty of hints that she was prepared to let the cat out of the bag if it suited her.

 

She was also interfering in politics with her landmines campaign. Arms are one of our biggest exports, (although that wasn't well known at the time,) and Charles' friends who were also politicians and on the queen's privy council were heavily involved with their own armaments businesses.

 

And the mother of our future king had a taste for Muslim men. At the time this was unthinkable in Establishment circles. She'd carefully kept Hasnet Kahn under wraps, but was prepared to go public with Dodi who was the son of a slightly dodgy chancer who had his own personal axe to grind against the Royal family.

 

And Charles wanted to marry Camilla.

 

All these seem much more trivial now, but then, as far as the Establishment were concerned, any one of these could have brought down the monarchy, let alone all of them put together. And one thing our monarchy has demonstrated often enough is their ruthlessness when it comes to self preservation and survival.

 

The Establishment found themselves in unprecedented territory. Times were different then, the establishment still hide bound by ancient tradition and protocols, and used to having the cloak of secrecy and rank, (not to mention the secret services,) to cover their tracks.

 

This is why I think they thought they could get away with murder. And I think a lot of the population thought so too, which is why Diana's death was thought by many many people to be suspicious, and why the mood turned very ugly towards the Royal family after her death, even before Diana's letter came to light (which wasn't until some years later) This rumbled on for years until an inquest had to be called. But all the clues were there, hidden in plain sight, like the character assassination of witnesses, and the failure to call or cross examine them.

 

After the inquest there was a concerted effort to airbrush her out of history.

But it keeps coming back to haunt them, and will continue to do so until there is a satisfactory and thorough enquiry and all the lingering questions are answered.

 

Eventually the truth will out.

 

Putting aside all the conspiracy theory claptrap, shall we just examine little miss Snow White a bit more shall we. That "taste for Muslim men" which you percieve as being so scadalous to the reputations of the royals. Was that any more or less scandal than her shagging around with Will Carling, Oliver Hoare and James Hewett.

 

As for nasty evil Charles and Camilla ruining perfect marraige. HA! My backside they did. Lets be realistic here, they were both dragging themselves up the aisle back in 1981. Nobody is going to point score on that point.

 

Face facts. She damaged her own repuation. She played the press like a fiddle and after a while they fought back which she could not handle.

 

Off she went to all and sundary with her victim act and blaming those nasty establishment types for everything.

 

She was a mentally disturbed attention seeker who was very very good at playing to the public and media to get what she wanted.

 

Public monies to the tune of nearly £25 million have already been piddled away on this circus. A french judicial investigation, a Metropolitan Police investigation, a MOD enquiry into allegations against MI6, a coroners investigation and 10 years later a public inqury resulted in a JURY giving a verdict of unlawful killing by negligence of the driver and their chasing press pack. (See that magic word there. Not some establishment ridden High Court Judge or Ex-politician or ex copper... A public jury).

 

How much more are we going to have to spend on this freak show.

Edited August 27, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[Anna B]

Putting aside all the conspiracy theory claptrap, shall we just examine little miss Snow White a bit more shall we. That "taste for Muslim men" which you percieve as being so scadalous to the reputations of the royals. Was that any more or less scandal than her shagging around with Will Carling, Oliver Hoare and James Hewett.

 

As for nasty evil Charles and Camilla ruining perfect marraige. HA! My backside they did. Lets be realistic here, they were both dragging themselves up the aisle back in 1981. Nobody is going to point score on that point.

 

Face facts. She damaged her own repuation. She played the press like a fiddle and after a while they fought back which she could not handle.

 

Off she went to all and sundary with her victim act and blaming those nasty establishment types for everything.

 

She was a mentally disturbed attention seeker who was very very good at playing to the public and media to get what she wanted.

 

Public monies to the tune of nearly £25 million have already been piddled away on this circus. A french judicial investigation, a Metropolitan Police investigation, a MOD enquiry into allegations against MI6, a coroners investigation and 10 years later a public inqury resulted in a JURY giving a verdict of unlawful killing by negligence of the driver and their chasing press pack. (See that magic word there. Not some establishment ridden High Court Judge or Ex-politician or ex copper... A public jury).

 

How much more are we going to have to spend on this freak show.

 

Fair points. I am no particular fan of Diana myself but that's so not the issue.

 

The fact that we knew anything at all about Camilla and James Hewitt and everything else that subsequently came out was down to Diana going public. Although considered by some an unthinkable lapse of judgement at the time, it was not a sign of madness. Although there were suspicions about Will Carling, Oliver Hoare etc, there was no admission of guilt as far as I can remember, they were seen as in her thrall but that's as far as it went, until it all came out at the inquest. But the very fact that she was prepared to draw back the veil and expose the royal family's dirty laundry was enough. There was also all that stuff about the page who was allegedly raped by a very high up person at the palace etc, etc. She was lethal. What else did she know but never got the chance to say?

 

The move to show her as 'mental' was again damage limitation by character assassination. Exactly the same methods that they used to ruin Paul Burrell by accusing him of theft, and to pull down the evidence of the soldier who worked for MI5. It's a tried and trusted method that has been used over and over again in this whole debacle. As the Queen supposedly said 'There are dark forces at work Paul...' (It's also noticable that Paul Burrell wasn't called to give evidence at the inquest and ran to America for cover.)

 

As for the investigations, there's as much conspiracy around them, but you'd need to read a book about it, there's too much to write here. The holes in the evidence are huge. Not necessarily deliberate, but sloppy and lax to say the least. It be difficult for experienced MI5 / MI6 agents too much trouble to fiddle the evidence.

 

As for the money, yes it's a lot. But I think we as taxpayers have a right to know the calibre of the people who rule over us, who make our laws, who spend our taxes, etc. and whether they are sufficiently corrupt enough to deal in death to save their own skins and that of an unelected family of freeloaders.

 

Incidently, the public jury were directed by the coroner not to bring in an open verdict even if they had doubts. Thus they brought in a verdict of unlawful killing. I'm not even sure if this is legal.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Anna B

[ANGELFIRE1]

I quite liked Di in her early years, when her popularity was probably at its highest. I don't understand why that clown Charles would prefer a married woman, who could not match Di in the beauty stakes in any way.

 

But towards the end Di did share her "favours" around, no need to mention who were on the receiving of these favours, but we all knew who they were. My like of Di did take a knock after these affairs, her children must have suffered during this time of her short life.

 

Rant over.

 

As for her demise in the tunnel, 100% pure accident caused by the driver of her car.

 

Angel1.

[apelike]

As for her demise in the tunnel, 100% pure accident caused by the driver of her car.

 

In the mid 60's it was common for mods to use flash cameras to blind overtaking rockers, and that is also portrayed in the film Quadrophenia.. Which incidentally was one of Charles favourite films. Apparently that was also one of the main factors contributing to the crash but this time it was by some paparazzi? photographer on the back of a motorcycle.

Edited August 28, 2017 by apelike

[Jacko92]

(It's also noticable that Paul Burrell wasn't called to give evidence at the inquest and ran to America for cover.)

 

Paul Burrell did give evidence at the inquest.

 

---------- Post added 28-08-2017 at 16:19 ----------

 

Having read the entire verbatim transcripts of the inquest at the time (which was 10 years after her death for some reason,) I was struck by the difference in what was actually said, and the way it was spun in the mainstream media to mean something entirely different. It was that that made me suspicious in the first place. I think there are still questions to be answered.

 

If this is true how can you not recall Burrell giving evidence?

 

---------- Post added 28-08-2017 at 16:23 ----------

 

Just a thought , but this so called letter where she predicts her death in a car crash , is there any evidence that it exists ? has anyone seen it other than her solicitors ?

 

Yes, it can be viewed online. Paul Burrell had it in his possession.

 

If my boss had written to me worrying she was going to be murdered in a car crash 10 months before she did in fact die in a car crash I too would keep the letter hidden for years and years and only reveal it when my memoirs are being published in exchange for hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 

Only a fool would hand it over immediately! Aye?

 

---------- Post added 28-08-2017 at 16:27 ----------

 

And Charles wanted to marry Camilla.

 

Really? In the letter where she predicted her own death she said Camilla was a decoy.

 

---------- Post added 28-08-2017 at 16:33 ----------

 

Totally futile given she was murdered by British security services on behalf of the establishment, which everyone knows is what happened.

 

Look on Youtube for the David Mitchell Robert Webb Diana Assassination sketch.

 

It picks apart how ludicrous the whole idea is.

 

---------- Post added 28-08-2017 at 16:42 ----------

 

She was also interfering in politics with her landmines campaign. Arms are one of our biggest exports, (although that wasn't well known at the time,) and Charles' friends who were also politicians and on the queen's privy council were heavily involved with their own armaments businesses.

 

Yeah. That would be a good reason to kill her. Though the UK signed the Ottawa Treaty in December 1997.

 

How do you explain that? Kill the anti-landmine campaigner to shut her up and then sign a treaty saying we won't make them or sell them anymore anyway? Who's dim-witted idea was that?

 

---------- Post added 28-08-2017 at 16:50 ----------

 

Because the issue exists for others. She predicted the manner of her death in a note she wrote.

 

No she didn't. She said the brakes would be tampered with and would die of brain injuries. She died of cardiac arrest. The car hit a wall at speed.

 

Why did Burrell wait until publishing his memoirs to reveal this note?

 

---------- Post added 28-08-2017 at 16:54 ----------

 

In the mid 60's it was common for mods to use flash cameras to blind overtaking rockers, and that is also portrayed in the film Quadrophenia.. Which incidentally was one of Charles favourite films. Apparently that was also one of the main factors contributing to the crash but this time it was by some paparazzi? photographer on the back of a motorcycle.

 

Says who?

 

The paparazzi weren't actually near the car when it crashed. One witness who testified that he saw a flash was contradicted by someone else. His wife who was sat next to him in their car.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Jacko92