What Bob?
There are somethings I can post and some I canât. Just in case I want to go see some old friends.
I did point out that those looking to add to the âwhat unknownsâ part of the debate could look deeper into one of the characters.
I will add that I have been through that tunnel (and laid some flowers there way back) and got the chills each time
Who is Bob? Sorry Iâm not sure I understand your post Phil!
This one in particular is far from being my specialist area but I know enough to think it stinks to high hell and that for anyone open to critical thought it couldnât be farther from âdebunkedâ.
What I find frustrating is closed mindedness and this notion that over here in the west that our shit doesnât stink and our government/monarchy etc etc wouldnât lie to us or do anything remotely unethical let alone corrupt or dare I say it⊠conspiratorial. Letâs leave all of that skulduggery to Johnny Foreigner shall we.
Or that if evidence isnât public then it doesnât exist and wouldnât have been withheld or destroyed because thatâs not a nice thing to do in a democracy. Or that investigations couldnât be interfered with or inquests whitewashed. Witnesses couldnât possibly be fabricated, threatened, bribed or eliminated because that only happens in gangster movies.
You get the point.
You been at the vodka, Phil? 
Thatâll be meâŠ
I think heâs alluding that because I split it from the Meghan Markle thread, I started it..
Perfectly put.
I have posted many times here & fiverweb how utterly alien it was reading âEnglish Languageâ Foreign Newspapers.
It was Barryâs biggest failing when he tried to debate - EVERYTHING had to conform to his perfect view of the world. I never pulled him up personally because it was âThe Britishâ view.
I was shocked to read a survey (may have been the Wall Street Times or something decades ago that listed the UK as the most corrupt country to do business in. Something that came up time and again in my Corporate years. (This was pre-UK laws on Corporate Entertainment Gifts etc)
What is REALLY interesting is that there were very well known stories about his days before Lonhro & UK. Yet they simply do not show upon Google here
Nope.
Just the Tomato Juice.
See? Bob confirmed it was him
Oh well in which case I apologise and stand corrected. Many thanks for âdebunkingâ that fallacy. 
âŠhowever, if one had been subscribing to Private Eye for these past 40-odd years, one would be all too familiar with the nefarious activities of Al Fugger. 
The idea that our governments, or other agents, can do no wrong, is a powerful one. Does that exist in every country with a government, I wonder? I suppose it does to an extent, but I reckon we might be particularly afflicted.
Weâve got the most sophisticated state broadcasting system in the world with around 90% of market share for news. Some people trust the BBC as much as they trust the NHS.
Also, weâve got one of the most sophisticated languages in the world. I love my native tongue, but with all the loan words it has received, it has become a very easy language to manipulate when you donât quite want to say something. Thatâs why itâs always a surprise when politicians actually say âsorryâ instead of âI regretâ.
Back to the original point. The media, especially the BBC, are massively culpable of committing the sin of omission, either by not mentioning stories that would change public opinion immediately, or only obliquely referring to something really important.
You mentioned that famous building and the BBC absolutely have footage that in a previous age, would have prompted massive feats of investigative journalism. Iâm referring to the footage where its demise has been reported while it stands extant and intact in the background.
The BBC had its teeth kicked out after David Kelly, and it remains a very diverse organisation with some very admirable things going on. Their news was always compromised.
You just need to look at them toeing the line on any major crisis of note, be it the miners strike, Hillsborough or any other area where the Establishmentâs interests are threatened, which would include Diana.
Theyâll report on how terrible something that happened 30 years ago was, even if itâs a vile cunt like Savile in their midst. Their job in the present is to pacify. Always has been.
I didnât create this thread. My quote at the top of this thread was taken from a different thread and a new title given to it so I take no responsibility. I decided to give it a rest because I could see where it was heading and I donât come into football forums for a row.
Hounded off SW by two people? Seriously? I backed off because the mods there donât moderate and deal with trolls and WUMs. As someone who is dealing with mental health issues I am sure you will appreciate that when people go out of their way to bully you it is best that you back off.
Al-Fayed had a long standing battle with âthe establishmentâ here as was desperate to be accepted into the higher echelons of British society and was also desperate for a British passport. I used to live in Oxted where his estate is. He wasnât like by the locals. Apart from not getting involved in the community he also closed off a number of public footpaths crossing his land which pissed the locals off no end. He erected two massive security gates at the entrance to his property and hid himself away. Despite that, when the crash happened the locals piled flowers outside the huge black gates as a sign of respect. The Independent did a lot of digging into his claims after the crash and came up with nothing. Of course it doesnât mean his claims were wrong, but to make such accusations you need to provide evidence to support your claims, something he has failed to do so far.
Diana didnât have to be engaged to a Muslim or pregnant to piss off the munitions trade, but I assume that the people who make land mines and cluster bombs also make plenty of other weapons which still sell nicely. Land mines are still not banned worldwide and other celebrities who have also campaigned to have them banned are still alive.
The tabloids would love to prove that Diana was murdered and was pregnant with Dodiâs baby but they have nothing. Even after nearly quarter of a century, not a sausage. Either this is the best cover up ever, or there is nothing to cover up.
I know, I have since been corrected and apologised for my error above.
Thereâs a difference between having a row and having a debate.
You say you come on a football forum but you have created non football threads (not this one) and contributed to many others so youâve demonstrated a willing to discuss non-football matters.
If you want to reply to a post I sent over a week ago, why not do so for the one I mentioned you in a on the alternate theories thread? I presume you didnât bother reading it but the point is that âconspiraciesâ are a very real, actual bonafide thing. If Operation Northwoods had been executed then there is no way on Earth that document gets declassified. âNational Securityâ would be threatened because thereâd be civil uproar and huge international/foreign policy repercussions. So youâd never have got that âevidenceâ or âofficialâ confirmation that it was a conspiracy. More than likely most people would have gone along with believing that Cuba was the aggressor and the history books will say as much, filing it away as âfactâ. After all, history is written by the victors.
So in my opinion it isnât helpful to throw around assertions that everything without âevidenceâ is one to be parked alongside lizard people, ghosts and flat earth.
Iâd have left this a long time ago as well if Iâd felt youâd taken on board my point. Thatâs all I was after. Not to convince you of anything in particular or to turn this in to a pissing contest.
I appreciate that there is a difference between a debate and a row and I donât mind a debate, but it seemed to be heading into less friendly territory and I really do not care enough about the subject to get embroiled to the point where my every utterance is picked over.
I really do not have a problem with conspiracy theories. I do however need to see something substantial to back them up. I hadnât come across anything in the Diana murder theory to make me think that there was anything in it. That is not to say that I didnât start off with an open mind.
I am sorry but I avoided the other thread as I thought it was probably aimed at me and, as I say, I didnât want to get stuck into something too deep. I have already been dug out for not responding to some posts and called a liar! Who needs this shit? It is just an opinion. Iâm not sure why it is such a big deal to have a different one. It doesnât take much to derail a thread or to end up in situations like Barry. I donât go onto forums for that.
It depends if you class arguments as bullying - the issue is you can be contradictory and hypocritical and that is the most frustrating thing - hence the Vicky Pollard comparisons - and you get peoples backs up. That is why they ended up following you around. The same used to happen with Always_SFC.
Nobody is name calling here and you need to be Barry in order to turn a thread in to a Barry thread.
Thereâs absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion. Pretty sure nobody here said that there was nor that your opinion was wrong. On the other hand if anything I could argue that you were being condescending about âconspiracy theoriesâ and those who entertain them. âPerpetuating mythsâ I believe you said.
The only thing that has happened here is other people offering entirely plausible reasons and motives for the same outcomes that youâve reached and also questioning the integrity of some of the purported evidence relied upon to get there.
For instance, I donât normally comment on non Saints threads for this exact reason but you lured me in to this debate with your assertion that professional hit men donât use a car crash scenario. Whereas my mindset would say that for the exact same reasons you THINK (because you donât know) a professional hit would NOT use a crash, I THINK (because I donât know) thatâs a great way to make an intended hit look like an accident. Much in the same way as some murders are attempted to be dressed up as suicide.
I threw up the example on the other thread because your own posts made reference to a number of infamous events that many believe are false flags which have apparently been debunked. Ignoring the fact that I disagree with that point, I was providing evidence that similar âconspiraciesâ are very real and that we only know that they are very real because the proposal documents were declassified - but only because it never ended up going ahead. Thereâs no denying the intention though.
As a consequence nobody gives a shit because it never got signed off and executed. But some arsehole conjured it up, wrote it down and fed it up the flag pole, only to be shot down at the last sign off - the president. No harm no foul? So if thatâs the level of evidence you require in order to accept a conspiracy as fact, then clearly youâre going to be waiting for eternity.
But look, this discussion is clearly going nowhere so Iâll leave you and this thread in peace.
Hello to those following this thread over at GCHQ 
Iâd be grateful if they could weigh in to be honest.
I think I know the difference between arguing and bullying. If someone deliberately follows you around and jumps on your every post donât you think that is bullying? As for getting peoples backs up, the people involved in SW have a history of it so please donât lay it all down to me. If you donât like someoneâs posts it is not that hard to ignore them.
As for the Vicky Pollard reference, where do I contradict myself? It would be helpful if you raised that point at the time rather than throw in random tv characters along the road.
I am sorry if you feel that I was being condescending towards conspiracy theories. I have said twice that I donât have a problem with them. I will say again though, they are just theories and there are some people who believe them despite evidence to the contrary. For example, my friend in the pub who is totally convinced that the moon landings never happened. Would you at least agree that there are some people who are convinced that everything we are told by â the establishmentâ is a lie? That is my problem. Some things gain credence because there are people who, without anything to back it up, will make certain claims that then become âfactâ just by virtue of becoming an urban myth or being repeated often enough.
Letâs take this one as an example. Where did the rumour that Diana was pregnant and engaged to Dodi come from? Apart from Al-Fayed saying that he heard the news from them on the night they died, where is the coroner sting evidence? Are we supposed to just take his word for it? We are told that Diana and Dodiâs phones were being hacked. If so there would be recordings of these conversations that could provide evidence and several people would be aware of them - these things leak out over time (Iâll park the obvious point that there would have been no time between the phone call and the crash to arrange a hit).
This isnât about me and my opinions. This is about some people making certain claims and other people investigating those claims and either finding information to support them or information to discredit them. I am, by no means, an expert on this matter nor have I read everything that has been published on it, but from what I have read, there is nothing yet that supports the claim that she was murdered. So, in my mind at least, this remains a conspiracy theory.
I feel that I am going round in circles here (my fault I know) which is why I bailed in the first place.