Reverting back in time, a bit of âlocal knowledgeâ
Dodi al Fayed was the 1st cousin of Jamal Khassogi.
He would have been a Sunni Muslim.
Under their rules for marriage, it is forbidden to marry an infidel.
My BFF fell in love with a girl and hit that problem. He had to convert to Islam & while we attended a âblessing marriageâ the main deed was done quietly.
Now, away from that, there are a number of factors that get âforgottenâ by âLittle Englandâ. Obviously not âthe conversionâ but, as we have allegedly seen with The Meg, the âEstablishmentâ may have been uncomfortable with the Heir to the Throne having a Sunni Mum. That has been well speculated.
Equally a very good friend who we always turned to for âPC Acceptanceâ on our events and communications did comment back in the day that there would be sects that would have (being non conspiratorial) issues with the head of a Christian Church being the child of a âgood muslimâ.
Which comes back to do I think Diana was silenced? Yes.
Am I myopic enough to think it was MI6? No.
It could have been other forces.
IF Dodi had been a Shia, Dodi could have married her without converting.
But perfect little England thinks Iran is Shia and they are the bad guys.
Sadly a little understanding goes a long way to help understand filters in life
According to âsources close to Dianaâ their relationship was âon rocky groundâ. They hadnât been an item that long anyway and she apparently was still pining for Khan who was the one she wanted to marry. Dodiâs father and other sources apparently tried to play it up more than it was. Rumours of an engagement have been debunked (Dodi was supposed to have bought a ring but it transpired that there was no ring, he just picked up a catalogue) as were rumours of a pregnancy. Not only was she found not to be pregnant but she was actively taking contraception. Al Fayed had long tried to become. British citizen and this was his âinâ having failed with his ownership of Harrods. From memory there was quite a lot of b/s pr coming out from his office which has been totally debunked.
Yep.
Al Fayed was on the top of the UAEâs "most wanted list.
Who were BFF of GB PLC
Who (at the time) fronted a great deal of overseas Trade via networks built and supported by the Royal Wasta.
(A point I made poorly in reply to our regular insomniac @Cobham-Saint)
Here you go again with the debunking. And Iâm not even going to comment on the âsources close toâ closed case, end of story âevidenceâ.
At the end of the day we all need to accept that news and facts are seldom without an agenda. Political, financial or other. There needs to be a level of trust placed on the accuracy of information and faith that itâs coming from a place of objectivity.
Take medical examinations. SURELY they can only be objective? Well, throw in some context because we donât live in a vacuum. Personal injury insurance claims. Claimant lawyers line the pockets (lawfully) of those medical âexpertsâ and consultants who find injury to support the claim no matter what. If they gave referrals to two consultants and one kept finding supporting âevidenceâ and the other didnât, who do you think is going to keep getting the referrals at ÂŁ1000 a piece? But who is the better doctor? The one who finds something wrong or the one who doesnât? Clearly the consultant will be aware it is in their best (financial) interests to tell their client what they want to hear. This doesnât mean they are lying because often there was a genuine accident and a certain level of damage. However exaggeration of symptoms is the name of the game. Bearing in mind insurance fraud is a very real thing and Iâm speaking from extensive experience of this type of covert surveillance investigation. People turning up in wheelchairs to their appointments but then taking a long walk along the promenade an hour later.
Then the insurance company instructs their own expert and guess what, different diagnosis. No organic reason for the symptoms.
I digress. But itâs an example of how context and incentive cannot be ignored even when science is involved. Information and facts are not always objective. And unless you can guarantee impartiality (which invariably you cannot) and witnessed it first hand the bottom line is you just donât know. To my mind the best you can do is be open minded, listen to both sides of the argument, establish who stands to benefit (as in all good police work) and then form an opinion. But ultimately thatâs all it can be - an opinion. Doesnât make it right but it doesnât make it wrong either.
So the denouncing of peopleâs views (by labelling them conspiracy theories) because they go against the grain and dare to question the integrity of information, which is essentially what all of this amounts to, really doesnât lend itself to critical thought.
They are theories none the less until proven are they not?
Unsubstantiated claims debunked by unsubstantiated claims. Which to believe?
Enough of semantics.
You canât keep anything under wraps forever. If the monarch had of arranged a hit, just imagine the uproar when the news got out?
But again I make the point why go to the trouble of killing a young woman who is no threat to National security? As we know, it canât have been to silence her as the information had already been spread. Both her and Charles were building new lives. It served no purpose and threatened to undermine the monarchy if people found out. What was it that was worth that risk?
But the point I was trying to make is that nobody KNOWS one way or the other.
Proven by WHO?
That is my point. The faith and trust that is put in people none of us know or evidence none of us have seen.
To stay on topic, I donât know what to make of this. What I do know is that a lot of stuff didnât make sense and sounded implausible. Neither you nor I knows if she was still sitting on some other damaging revelations or had completely spilled her guts already. So you donât KNOW she wasnât still a threat to the Monarchy (not national security). Maybe she was holding something else back and did the interviews to show she was serious and trying to warn them off. Speculation of course but again, my point is neither of us KNOWS.
Nobody has debunked the intangibles for me in any convincing manner. The truth doesnât always have to be the âconspiracyâ theory but questions need asking as to whether the official narrative is the full story.
People and governments kill people all the time. Many of whom are innocent but simply a liability or a problem to their own self interests. So when you break it down is it so far fetched?
Of course thereâd be uproar if it were âprovenâ true but it wonât be will it for that very reason.
I appreciate that nobody is going to believe that she wasnât murdered just because I believe that she wasnât. I have read and seen many of the arguments for and have also read and seen those arguments dismantled so I have reached my own opinion based on that.
Iâve never done much history formally, but one of the things that has stuck with me is the difference between primary and secondary evidence.
Iâm not at the point where if I didnât see it, it didnât happen, but I think itâs fair to say that I donât take stuff Iâve not seen, especially the detail, at face value either.
There are two maxims I live by, one common and one of my own.
If you donât watch the news, youâre uninformed. If you do, youâre misinformed.
And riffing on thatâŠ
Never ask whatâs on the news. Ask why itâs on the news.
At times you can swap out ânewsâ with âtellyâ. I remember when the Tories got back in and went after benefit claimaints.
Within a year, you had Benefits Street on the telly, scathing stories about scroungers in the tabloids.
Even the Liverpool Echo played along. I remember seeing one headline like this.
MURDERER JAILED | RAPIST CAUGHT | BENEFITS CHEAT IN COURT
The eliteâs media setup is fucking impressive. They should let me have a steer for a bit
There often isnât a âsmoking gunâ meaning that you end up trying to prove or disprove something with a great deal of subjective evidence. On top of the evidence you also have to prove intent/motive. Fortunately now we donât have to rely on the general media for information thanks to the internet. It still leaves the problem of sorting fact from fiction etc but at least it gives more options. Despite that I still canât convince a friend of mine that the moon landings actually happened.
Many years ago I like many others became embroiled with the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of JFK. One of the reasons given that the official explanation was trashed concerned the rifle used. It was said to be old and unable to hit a barn door at 5 paces so there was no way that Oswald could have made those shots. Many years later I saw a programme with using the new fore since which gradually debunked the various claims surrounding the assassination. One concerned the rifle. Someone recreated the conditions using a similar weapon and proved that it was capable of making those fatal shots from that location.
Iâll go back to a point I made earlier. The chances of killing someone via a contrived RTA in a city centre are very slim. Why set up a hit that has little chance of success? You only have to try again which would cause even greater suspicion. Still, we will all carry on believing what we believe.
You will know from your time in the CPS that cumulative evidence is important. Most of the cases that ever come in are a result of the cumulative evidence being enough to try for a conviction.
Now Iâm happy, for you at least, that youâve had your doubts on the Kennedy case assuaged by one documentary. That must be very comforting.
The problem is, the cumulative evidence is still there. Usual security team pulled. Open top car in Dealey Plaza, slowing down as it comes around the corner. Reports of multiple gunshots from eye-witnesses on the day coming from multiple sources. The death-bed confession of E. Howard Hunt. LBJ stating that he took the Vice Presidency because one in four Presidents die in office and he liked those odds. The death of Oswald and his assassin, in quite short order.
I think youâre probably better off getting your information from books rather than a TV documentary purpose-designed to send you back to sleep. I still think itâs dodgy as all hell.
I wasnât debunking the whole evidence, just some. I do believe that we still havenât gotten to the bottom of what actually happened that day, but some of the early claims against the official position have been shown to be rubbish. Many of the conspiracy theories over the twin towers have been proved to be rubbish over the years. I saw one that was supposed to prove that the towers were brought down by demolition charges and was endorsed by a demolition expert. Not long later this was debunked by a detailed scientific explanation of why and how the towers collapsed.
In the CPS it was a refreshing change to deal with facts. Much of the time we were dealing with probabilities. You have to remember that the police bring cases to the CPS, the agency does not go out and find its own. So on the one hand you have the police saying one thing and you have the defence saying something else. If the police can make a strong enough case, the CPS will charge but initially the CPS is a third party and needs to be convinced there is a case to prosecute.
I have not seen anyone say âThe Royal Familyâ murdered Diana.
Youâve used that a couple of times. It is a supposition when you keep trying to state facts & too generic.
At no point does the phrase âwas Diana silenced?â accuse anyone. Because, as I tried to point out, it could have been a much wider cause
Ah, the old, âfind one holeâ and everything is shit angle.
Again, must be comforting.
I donât know anyone whoâd live life that way.
e.g.
You suspect someone is fucking you over in some way. You canât prove it but there have been a few outcomes, and a few pieces of information, leave you with the distinct impression that something is awry. Also, theyâve been nice to your face.
Do you:-
Operate on the assumption that you might get fucked over again
Operate on what you can prove, that they are sometimes nice to your face, so they must be nice
Fair point. But who else had a motive? The manufacturers of land mines I suppose. A number of jealousy wives and girlfriends of her latest conquests? We are talking about an upmarket clothes horse here though, not some international terrorist or threat to society.
I think youâre somewhat under-assessing the damage that Diana, or anyone with access to the inner circle, could do with the inside knowledge.
The last thing the Royal Family needs is to be perceived as just like any other family. By definition, and because of the place they hold in society, e.g. the apex of the fucking class system, they cannot be seen to be anything less than whiter than white.
The problem, of course, is that they are human beings just like anybody else to begin with. A bigger problem is that they really havenât lived up to that standard. Failed marriages, forced marriages, a long history of involvement with suspected or proven child abusers.
If Esther Rantzen knew what Savile was in the 1980s, and Johnny Rotten knew what Savile was in the 1970s, then I think it almost inconceivable that the Establishment, vetting for Cold War scenarios, didnât know what he was.
Thatcher had to try five times to get him on the honours list. What was she told on each of the four knockbacks? Did she care?
And yet, this man was not only friend to many Royals, but fucking inexplicably, was asked to do marriage counselling for Charles and Diana.
Add to that the rumours swirling around Mountbatten and what that might mean for his favourite nephew, the friendship of Prince Andrew with Epstein.
I appreciate that it had to look like an accident, but it only âsucceededâ due to bad luck and the fact that Diana wasnât wearing a seat belt. If the car had been driven more slowly. If the the car had left the road shortly before or after where it actually did etc. As I said, there were so many variables if it was planned the planners had no control over so success was anything but guaranteed. There are plenty of ways of arranging âaccidentsâ (especially for people who are constantly travelling by private planes, helicopters, boats etc)that are much more likely to succeed. Even if everything went exactly to plan there was still no guarantee that the impact would cause he death.
