Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Warren

That's quite simple Madame Royale.

Wiliam and Harry either/or/all of the below:
a. are part of the conspiracy-cover up;
b. are being blackmailed by the secret services;
c. have been threatened by agents with lethal syringes.

I'm sure these facts can be found on the internet somewhere. If not, they are now here.

Particularly the last one!!!

Thank you, Warren. A good laugh is never declined.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

Er, no we don't! It's still all speculation, there's no definite fact as to who it was.

I think the last film I watched about it said it was a vampire. Or was it just someone pretending to be a vampire? Oh dear. I've forgotten.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I think the last film I watched about it said it was a vampire. Or was it just someone pretending to be a vampire? Oh dear. I've forgotten.

There, there. You just sit back and have a long G & T, I'm sure if it does't come back to you soon there will be more than a few that will be only too honoured and thrilled to come to your aid.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Warren

That's quite simple Madame Royale.

Wiliam and Harry either/or/all of the below:
a. are part of the conspiracy-cover up;
b. are being blackmailed by the secret services;
c. have been threatened by agents with lethal syringes.

I'm sure these facts can be found on the internet somewhere. If not, they are now here.

But once William is king, he can:

- stop being part of the conspiracy cover-up.
- order the secret services to dissolve
- threaten the agents with a syringe, even kill them without ever be prosecuted as the monarch is immune to prosecution (or isn't he?).

So just wait and see what really gorgeous kind of drama will unfold once William is able to take revenge!!

LOL!

[Jo of Palatine]

Just a short remark:

Having read the report (at least partly) I stopped wondering why Paul Burrell published his latest book on Diana - first why he did it at all and secondly why he didn't wait for the 10th anniversary. Of course slimy Paul realised that all his "secrets" would be out in the open for free anyway as soon as the report was going to get published and wanted to cash in on them as long as he could. Poor Diana! There are many sad revelations about her, but this surely is one of the worst.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

But once William is king, he can:

- stop being part of the conspiracy cover-up.
- order the secret services to dissolve
- threaten the agents with a syringe, even kill them without ever be prosecuted as the monarch is immune to prosecution (or isn't he?).

So just wait and see what really gorgeous kind of drama will unfold once William is able to take revenge!!

LOL!

And when he's done all that, he'll tap his comminicator and say "Beam me up Scotty. I'm in deep **** here!"

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by MARG

Now, now. You know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

True, but it is such fun waiting for the holier than thou responses! (not aimed at anyone).

[selrahc4]

I've read the report and have the tired eyes to prove it.

It was very interesting to read a document like this instead of the bits and pieces, rumors, and speculation that had previously made it to the media.

I hope that everyone who undertakes to read it does not skip anything, for that will leave you with an incomplete impression of what it contains. I certainly can see the fallacy of discussing this report based on second-hand summaries and internet opinion rather that from reading the report itself in full.

Whether or not you have pre-concieved opinions either way about the conclusions reached in the report, it is a must-read for "both sides" in order to give substance to discussing your point of view in the future.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

True, but it is such fun waiting for the holier than thou responses! (not aimed at anyone).

Indeed Skydragon! Not only is it the lowest form of wit, it is also the highest form of intelligence!:whistling (not aimed at anyone).

[blackdaisies]

before i read this 800 page report that took me a half an hour to download almost, please tell me if this report is valid for the current investigation. as i recall there was a second investigation due to new information. so am i reading the correct report for the current information or is this report outdated?

and i know, not directed an anyone, that a lot of royal followers are mostly housewify people who live in their own world where nothing bad ever happens, no crimes are ever committed, and the sun shines all day where you can bask in bathing suits and suntan oil in the arctic, so my point is that some peoloe like to live through fantasies like following the royal family around like they are saints, so not purposesly trying to offend them, but i think people caught up in a dream world of fantasy should not keep passing off the investigation like it's lies when there is legitimate proof enough that they recalled another investigation, not for public request for one, but for legitimate proof. i could be wrong, but i know this can't be a complete report because it was written in 2004 before new information has been recorded and investigated due in 2008.

does any one have another link to the report you are speaking of and to a link of what has changed from the 2004 report to what will be in the 2008 report?

[sassie]

Originally Posted by blackdaisies

before i read this 800 page report that took me a half an hour to download almost, please tell me if this report is valid for the current investigation. as i recall there was a second investigation due to new information. so am i reading the correct report for the current information or is this report outdated?

and i know, not directed an anyone, that a lot of royal followers are mostly housewify people who live in their own world where nothing bad ever happens, no crimes are ever committed, and the sun shines all day where you can bask in bathing suits and suntan oil in the arctic, so my point is that some peoloe like to live through fantasies like following the royal family around like they are saints, so not purposesly trying to offend them, but i think people caught up in a dream world of fantasy should not keep passing off the investigation like it's lies when there is legitimate proof enough that they recalled another investigation, not for public request for one, but for legitimate proof. i could be wrong, but i know this can't be a complete report because it was written in 2004 before new information has been recorded and investigated due in 2008.

does any one have another link to the report you are speaking of and to a link of what has changed from the 2004 report to what will be in the 2008 report?

Know your facts. The report published in 2004 was by the French police, investigating an accident which occured on their soil. The most recent report, published last week, was according to the laws that require a British inquest on behalf of any British citizen who dies on foreign soil. ANY British citizen. It was a routine procedure. They did not 'call' for a British investigation because the French one was faulty-it was always intended, according to law, that a British inquest would take place.

[blackdaisies]

well, i'll search for it, but yet didn't find it. the french one concluded none of the people were wearing seatbelts, which was not true, so there is even a little proof they didn't know what they were doing. i got to page 10 on that and all they gave on the first pages was an overview of where dodi and diana were, not the photographers that followed them, the surveilance that was used on them, and i don't know if had any information yet on if there were any suspicuous people hanging around the tunnel before or after the accident on that day or before that day.

[Elspeth]

Apparently it was true that none of them were wearing their seat belts.

[blackdaisies]

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/...ana_report.pdf

this is the one that says it was printed in december 2006 and on the first page is it says none of them were wearing seat belts. not only does it say they aren't wearing seat belts, but uses bad grammar in the sentence saying "was" instead of "were". i know i have the correct file now.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by blackdaisies

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/...ana_report.pdf

this is the one that says it was printed in december 2006 and on the first page is it says none of them were wearing seat belts. not only does it say they aren't wearing seat belts, but uses bad grammar in the sentence saying "was" instead of "were". i know i have the correct file now.

That's correct, none of them were wearing seatbelts. The French investigation concluded that, and so did the British. Trevor Rees Jones has already said that no one was wearing a seatbelt. What is your point?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by blackdaisies

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/...ana_report.pdf

this is the one that says it was printed in december 2006 and on the first page is it says none of them were wearing seat belts. not only does it say they aren't wearing seat belts, but uses bad grammar in the sentence saying "was" instead of "were". i know i have the correct file now.

None of the occupants of the car was wearing a seat belt at the time of the impact.

Actually this is perfectly correct grammar - the subject of the verb is 'none of the occupants' which is singular and therefore 'was' is the correct verb not 'were'.

This is a common error, particularly among younger people, who think that the subject in this sentence is 'occupants' whereas, in fact it is 'none of the occupants' with 'none' being the operative word for determining the 'verb'. It means 'not ONE of the occupants' equalling a singular subject.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by blackdaisies

and i know...that a lot of royal followers are mostly housewify people who live in their own world....

Speaking on my own behalf, I've never thought of myself as particularly "housewify".

but i think people caught up in a dream world of fantasy should not keep passing off the investigation like it's lies..

Blackdaisies, I'm confused here. Isn't this exactly what you are doing? You wrote at post #578 "the whole [Operation Paget Report] is probably trash and biased."
Have you changed your view?

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by blackdaisies
and i know...that a lot of royal followers are mostly housewify people who live in their own world....

Possibly the world you're thinking of is the 'internet' (?). People can be whoever they want to be and sometimes treat others in a way they normally wouldn't because theres no physicality involved. Its a sad truth but nonetheless, it exists.

I do agree with Warren though re the 'housewify' comment. This forum consists of people from all ages and walks of life and not just 'housewify' contributors (not that they have any lesser right than I or anyone).

[Charlotte1]

Blackdaisies, up until now I've been reading your posts with a great deal of amusement ( albeit with some difficulty, as a knowledge of the conventions of correct punctuation wouldn't go astray!) But your patronising generalisation as to who you consider to be royalty watchers is insulting. Particularly, as these people you are chosing to denigrate, are the same ones who are exposing your own lack of knowledge, be it either about the death of Diana, or correct grammar!
To suggest that 'housewify' ( spelt incorrectly by the way, a knowledge of spelling rules would be good too! The 'i' in 'wife' makes a long 'i' sound due to the silent 'e' at the end, therefore it needs to be 'housewifey'. What you've written has a short 'i' sound as in 'if'.) Anyway back to people who chose to remain at home, male or female, their intelligence does not evaporate when they decide to remain at home rather than go out to work. Being a housewife or househusband does not make one a gibbering idiot who lives in fantasy land.
Educate yourself, rather than denigrating and patronising those who disagree with you.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

Anyway back to people who chose to remain at home, male or female, their intelligence does not evaporate when they decide to remain at home rather than go out to work.

Especially if they (me!) take their "housewifey" 5 minutes off from work at home to join the forums....