The (former) Princess Diana megathread [Archive]

Geoff

28-02-2003, 12:48

Originally posted by "BBC News"

A programme which claims to have contacted the spirit of Princess Diana is to be broadcast on TV next month.
The Spirit of Diana features video footage of séances in Paris and London in which mediums claim to have made contact with Diana's spirit.

US programme makers Associated Television International say the documentary aims to investigate Diana's interest in spirituality.

It will be screened on satellite and cable television channel Living TV on 10 March.

...
Also see read this article.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/Entertainment/GMA030227Princess_di_seance.html

Your opinions on this rubbish (:wink:) please!

:shock:

Moon Maiden

28-02-2003, 18:11

Like you said - rubbish.

Even though I would be lumped in with this lot - I hate watching any program that is supposed to show anything spiritual. They take the actual factual bits out and fill it with sensationalised pap.

There may be something in this - but I have not yet met one so called psychic with believable abilities. Even better it's on Living!! Must be true then :roll:

Moon Maiden

halevan

28-02-2003, 20:09

My first reaction to this news is, it is a load of bunk, how can anyone contact the spirit world. There are more fraudulent medium's in this world than one can count!!! It is nothing but a con trick.

Surprisingly, lot's of people are so gullible they swallow it hook line and sinker, a friend of mine likes nothing better than to visit a clairvoyant and pay anything up to £££s for a reading.

These so called seer's are very observant and usually can say something which convinces the punter that they know about their life, feeling satisfied that it is true and genuine. They live on their wit's, earning a nice income thank you very much. :lol: :o :D Hal, Evans.

Moon Maiden

28-02-2003, 21:28

Clairvoyant and readings do NOT go hand in hand. In fact I would be extremely wary of anyone claiming to be a clairvoyant.
I read cards - my husbands reads stones and interprets dreams. We make no fancy claims to what we do our 'subjects' tell of our rep good or not.

The thing is people believe that what is said in the cards is definately what is going to happen which is wrong. I do not know if this is what the mainstream readers out there are peddling but your future is never set - you always have the option to change your path.

Moon Maiden

Geoff

10-03-2003, 11:40

According to Radio 2, this program is on Living TV on SKY tonight :?

MARTINO 1

21-10-2003, 18:36

Whats the truth about princess dianas death lots of rumours over the years and now this letter that has suddenly surfaced was she bumped off forum people what do you think.

MrH

21-10-2003, 18:40

I think it was all a long time ago and, whilst very sad, resurrecting the issue is serving no purpose other than selling Paul Burrell's new book.

Sidla

21-10-2003, 19:34

This subject has always set alarm bells ringing in my head. I've never, ever believed that her 'death' was an accident because there's just something not right about the whole thing. It's just the irony of her running from paparazzi that eventually killed her, doesn't seem right in my mind. Originally I thought she was still alive, and her death was all staged so her and Dodi could escape to a desert island somewhere. This could still be a possibility I suppose, but one thing I feel certain about, is that there is something being covered up.

tinajones

21-10-2003, 19:43

Originally posted by MrHelicopter
I think it was all a long time ago and, whilst very sad, resurrecting the issue is serving no purpose other than selling Paul Burrell's new book.

yes it does seem like a good opportunity for him to disclose this info but...
1. maybe he was too scared at the time to say anything - or was made to keep his mouth shut.
2. i'm not gonna buy the book now that i know the most contraversial bit of info and it was for free.

Sidla

21-10-2003, 19:46

I don't think we should waste money having an inquirey. If it is a conspiracy we'll never know the truth.

tinajones

21-10-2003, 19:52

Originally posted by Sidla
I don't think we should waste money having an inquirey. If it is a conspiracy we'll never know the truth.

no faith in the legal system? i know oj simpson got away with murder but would that happen in the UK too? then again, it looked well suspicious when john leslie's trial was dropped at the last minuite with little explanation...

£$$£££$$$=power
(is there no key for the euro?)

Sidla

21-10-2003, 20:12

Yes there is: €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

(Ctrl+Alt+4)

tinajones

21-10-2003, 20:14

€€€€€

brilllliiiiiiant!

now answer the question sidla - does money equal power? can injustice be bought? always?

Sidla

21-10-2003, 20:39

Yes, especially when it's at governmental level.

tinajones

21-10-2003, 20:43

what about media intervention - leaks to the press about gov scandals. dianagate? dianatunnel. oops :rolleyes:

Belle

21-10-2003, 21:22

On a very personal level may I just say this one thing

CLUNK CLICK EVERY TRIP

Or pay the consequences

purplepippa

22-10-2003, 03:50

Originally posted by MARTINO 1
Whats the truth about princess dianas death lots of rumours over the years and now this letter that has suddenly surfaced was she bumped off forum people what do you think.

LOL sorry I entirely misread that as:

"was she bumped off BY forum people"

I was like, blimey!!

purplepippa

22-10-2003, 03:54

I really don't know what to make of this.

When it happened, I was convinced that she had faked her own death in order to escape media attention.

I don't think that now.

I will be the first to admit that I certainly don't know enough about the whole thing to form an opinion, but some info I read (can't verify it) suggested that it was a set-up because:

* they were supposed to be going to Dodi's flat and they were going in the wrong direction

* eyewitnesses report gunfire in the tunnel

* all Paris police radios went mysteriously dead when it happened so noone could respond quickly enough to save her life.

Now as I said before I cannot verify any of that information, but it provided me with food for thought at least.

I don't know what I think about it, but an assassination to prevent an Asian entry into the Royal Family certainly doesn't seem impossible.

Faithless

22-10-2003, 12:47

I don't think for one minute that Diana's death was an accident.

fnkysknky

22-10-2003, 15:39

SAS did it...

You remember the guy in the car right after it happened? That was an SAS guy that was ;)

tinajones

22-10-2003, 15:57

Originally posted by fnkysknky
SAS did it...

ok. just don't tell classic rock!

Sidla

22-10-2003, 17:23

Originally posted by purplepippa
When it happened, I was convinced that she had faked her own death in order to escape media attention.
That's exactly what I thought.

halevan

22-10-2003, 20:24

Originally posted by MARTINO 1
Whats the truth about princess dianas death lots of rumours over the years and now this letter that has suddenly surfaced was she bumped off forum people what do you think.

There are many unanswered Questions about Diana's death, and I cannot decide whether it was an accident or not, I think there should be an enquiry.

Belle

22-10-2003, 21:59

Christ Almighty

We all have to die from something

And she wasnt wearing a seat belt

And sadly some people do die in car crashes

Especially those who are too fancy to wear seat belts

Suddenly it was all meant to be, she was the victim of infidels and palace plots

What a load of ********

Did Diana die because of a strange plot or did she die because she was in a car crash without a seat belt, and others who wore one were saved?

Yes I believe so

For some of you, if she had died at the age of 92 in her sleep it would still have been a conspiracy

Can you please try to join the real world?

Phanerothyme

22-10-2003, 22:59

Originally posted by Sidla
This could still be a possibility I suppose, but one thing I feel certain about, is that there is something being covered up.

There is a medical name for that feeling. Perhaps you should see a doctor.

anyway
I think we should have an inquiry for the rest of the poor schmucks who died in car accidents in '97

I mean, who honestly cares?

I'm sorry for her kids - even princes need a mum - but beyond that, the whole thing was a non-story: Woman dies in car accident - end.

I very nearly didn't come back to UK when I saw the National Grief-a-Thon kick into motion in the first place.

Having an enquiry 7 years later will serve to muddy waters and get the whole bandwagon rolling again. I can see the tabloid editors now, leafing through the Tuscan Property Pages and salivating at the thought of an inquiry and their circulation figures.

I want an inquiry into the decisions that led us to war, something that affected millions of people worldwide.

How Diana died is academic - before, she was a princess, now, she is worm food. If she'd worn a seatbelt, she might have lived.

Spacehopper

23-10-2003, 00:29

8) Nah Den Ace........

It's time that the truth was known........

If you take the letters of Diana Spencer and jumble them up, you end up with Ian Duncan Smith.......apparently. The coincidences don't stop there! Think, did you ever see Lady Di and either Ian or Duncan Smith in the same room?

No, I thought not! They are all one and the same. Ian goes round saying he is Duncan, Duncan says he is Ian.......it was a nightmare for their teachers at school. Anyway, ever since their mum caught them wearing her clothes, they have stopped being Lady Di and faked her death to avoid any awkward questions being asked.

Regards,

Spacehopper.

Lou

23-10-2003, 11:25

If her death is some kind of conspiracy then it's a pretty cruel joke to play on her sons. And if the Princes were "in on it" then they did some blooming good acting at her funeral. Famous people eat, drink, sleep, poo and die like the rest of us non-famous people. I suppose some of you still think Elvis is alive?

fnkysknky

23-10-2003, 12:19

Just look through the evidence - hardly clean cut is it. Some people die naturally, some people die in accidents, some people are killed...

Sidla

23-10-2003, 15:29

Does nobody think that the irony of her death being brought about by paparazzi is just too much to believe though?

Phanerothyme

23-10-2003, 16:09

Originally posted by Sidla
Does nobody think that the irony of her death being brought about by paparazzi is just too much to believe though?

Why should something that seems ironic be unbelievable? I guess it is because it seems too much like a narrative, which need a narrator - someone choreographing things 'behind the scenes'. On that level I see your point Sidla, I really do.

But on the other hand, she was chased by papparazzi in cars and on bikes 24-7 all year round for several years. (Partly due to her own brand of media management)

One could equally say it was only a matter of time before someone came a cropper, especially if you consider how strongly motivated the papparazzi were (by the large sums commanded by her likeness) to exceed all normal boundaries in press photography.

TeeVee

30-10-2003, 16:01

If Diana didn't wear the seat belt at the start of the journey then surely if she was later being chased by vehicles she would put it on. We know she didn't so there was no chase.

It wasn't an accident and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a car waiting deliberately PARKED IN THE TUNNEL ACCROSS THE ROAD.

No seatbelt will save you from a head on to broadside collision.

Belle

30-10-2003, 16:07

I'll bet Michael Howard was the driver

Lickszz

30-10-2003, 17:47

Originally posted by TeeVee
If Diana didn't wear the seat belt at the start of the journey then surely if she was later being chased by vehicles she would put it on. We know she didn't so there was no chase.

It wasn't an accident and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a car waiting deliberately PARKED IN THE TUNNEL ACCROSS THE ROAD.

No seatbelt will save you from a head on to broadside collision.

From what I remember about that tunnel either side of the road is seperated by concrete pillows.

Phanerothyme

01-11-2003, 10:04

Originally posted by TeeVee
If Diana didn't wear the seat belt at the start of the journey then surely if she was later being chased by vehicles she would put it on. We know she didn't so there was no chase.

Slightly demented logic, if I may say so.

It wasn't an accident and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a car waiting deliberately PARKED IN THE TUNNEL ACCROSS THE ROAD.

No seatbelt will save you from a head on to broadside collision.
Seatbelt saved the driver.

MichaelTravis

01-11-2003, 11:34

If I wasn't so polite and sensitive to other people's feelings, I'd be tempted to say something along the lines of, "Who cares how the slag died?".

Peace.

Belle

04-11-2003, 11:29

She died on my birthday

The world mourned

I wanted to eat cake and drink champagne

It wasnt great

Callassa

05-11-2003, 13:53

Hi. In the USA (here, where I am) the reinventing of the 'issues' surrounding Diana's demise has brought a tendency, because of the nature of the diatribe, to view the British Intelligence Services as assassins. It therefore is not what is being seized upon and said by the yanks, but the intentions underlying their statements. I can say that we (the British) do not murder our own and therefore ask, who does? Hmm.....Those who point their lying shyster fingers over and toward where, compared to the USA, it's the next best thing to utopia. The yanks can't live with the fact that they do not run the show and their share of life's promise is well below that of the average Brit. It's not difficult to see that it's all related to the propaganda that yanks are fed about their having a higher and greater purpose. What pewk. What is the case for the UK reached its apogee with Diana's diplomacy, to such an extent that the US propaganda machines were well and truly neutralised. Now, to try and compete there is the remergence of guess who....Jackie Onassis. I mean, this is not surprising becaues the heavy and sombre cloud of premature and deliberate death overhangs her too. Perhaps it's this association that the yanks prefer......The main point being that someone should ask 'The Butler' to come clean and tell who is actually paying him to make suggestive and lying comments that really do demean MI6 et al. and why, at this time when resources are stretched because of the terrorist threat across the UK. The confidence in who protects our land should not be rattled simply because it's not appropriate so to do. MI6 were not responsible for Diana's death. MI6 were charged with protecting her well- being. Who is it that has something to gain? Who is it that cares not for who gets killed and only the idiotic and contrived end result? Who can contrive and manipulate, thus take us all by surprise? Who benefits from instability and rifts in the UK and is continually at work in creating them? Its not only those whom are obvious, but those who smile, wave flags and really, are about much more than that........What fun!
Callassa. (Was from Sheff. then CA, TX and now MA)

Phanerothyme

05-11-2003, 14:41

Originally posted by Belle
She died on my birthday

The world mourned

I wanted to eat cake and drink champagne

It wasnt great

Still, SURPRISE! eh?

fnkysknky

05-11-2003, 14:50

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
If I wasn't so polite and sensitive to other people's feelings, I'd be tempted to say something along the lines of, "Who cares how the slag died?".

Peace.

Yeah that to

Belle

06-11-2003, 11:51

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Still, SURPRISE! eh?

ROFLMAO

:partyhat:

MichaelTravis

06-11-2003, 13:43

Originally posted by Callassa
Hi. In the USA (here, where I am) the reinventing of the 'issues' surrounding Diana's demise has brought a tendency, because of the nature of the diatribe, to view the British Intelligence Services as assassins. It therefore is not what is being seized upon and said by the yanks, but the intentions underlying their statements. I can say that we (the British) do not murder our own and therefore ask, who does? Hmm.....Those who point their lying shyster fingers over and toward where, compared to the USA, it's the next best thing to utopia. The yanks can't live with the fact that they do not run the show and their share of life's promise is well below that of the average Brit. It's not difficult to see that it's all related to the propaganda that yanks are fed about their having a higher and greater purpose. What pewk. What is the case for the UK reached its apogee with Diana's diplomacy, to such an extent that the US propaganda machines were well and truly neutralised. Now, to try and compete there is the remergence of guess who....Jackie Onassis. I mean, this is not surprising becaues the heavy and sombre cloud of premature and deliberate death overhangs her too. Perhaps it's this association that the yanks prefer......The main point being that someone should ask 'The Butler' to come clean and tell who is actually paying him to make suggestive and lying comments that really do demean MI6 et al. and why, at this time when resources are stretched because of the terrorist threat across the UK. The confidence in who protects our land should not be rattled simply because it's not appropriate so to do. MI6 were not responsible for Diana's death. MI6 were charged with protecting her well- being. Who is it that has something to gain? Who is it that cares not for who gets killed and only the idiotic and contrived end result? Who can contrive and manipulate, thus take us all by surprise? Who benefits from instability and rifts in the UK and is continually at work in creating them? Its not only those whom are obvious, but those who smile, wave flags and really, are about much more than that........What fun!
Callassa. (Was from Sheff. then CA, TX and now MA)

You what?

Don_Kiddick

20-08-2005, 09:34

What did they do, phone her up? :hihi:
She's not dead.
They polished off a couple of lookalikes while the real couple dodged out the back.

Everyone knows that! :rolleyes:

If they could fake Glenn Millers death (as they did) they can fake anyones.

hazel

20-08-2005, 11:38

Off the subject, but how and why did they fake Glenn Miller's death, I thought it was true.

hazel

Don_Kiddick

20-08-2005, 12:33

There was a documentary on telly some time back, Hazel.
He apparently developed some terminal illness & wanted to bough out of the limelite & spend his final days with his family.

The plane's log book turned up a few years ago (the plane that was supposed to have 'gone down') and it was still working years later as a transport plane... :thumbsup:

hazel

20-08-2005, 13:00

Thanks Don,

I never knew that but can't blame him for doing it.

hazel

evildrneil

20-08-2005, 14:37

They have found her hidden bottle of gin? I thought it was only the queen ma who did that???

Kristian

20-08-2005, 14:41

Originally posted by evildrneil
They have found her hidden bottle of gin? I thought it was only the queen ma who did that???

Steady on Neil, there's nothing wrong with a stashed bottle of gin! ;)

poppins

20-08-2005, 15:06

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
There was a documentary on telly some time back, Hazel.
He apparently developed some terminal illness & wanted to bough out of the limelite & spend his final days with his family.

The plane's log book turned up a few years ago (the plane that was supposed to have 'gone down') and it was still working years later as a transport plane... :thumbsup:

Thats interesting Don, i never knew that either, i juust thought his plane went down.

poppins

20-08-2005, 15:11

saw some kind of trailer for a new one of those daft reality showsshown in the states, called THE AMERICAN PRINCESS, has Di's butler in it, Paul (somebody), don't know how he has the nerve to still hang around.

Airs tomorrow night over here, has it been on over there ?

Deavon

21-04-2006, 02:00

Or her memory at least:

Finally after nearly 10 years it has happened...

The Queen has finally put the memory of Diana to rest.

Back in 1997 it was understood that the monarchy could never recover fully from the divorce and ongoing acrimony of Charles and Diana without doing something drastic to salvage the situation.

The source of the trouble was taken care of in a dark alley in Paris...

Now on the eve of her birthday, there is no other head of the Royal family, there is no rival court, there is no critical eye, no alternative view. The Queen literally reigns supreme in the public imagination. But none of her current popularity would have been possible if Diana was still striding the front pages today and dominating the agenda. The course of the history of the Royal Family was altered for their better on that night back in '97 as the summer drew to a close and the colder, darker nights drew in.

A very, very happy birthday ma'am.

Strix

21-04-2006, 02:24

Oh well. She always did enjoy a bit of drama.
All the best drama queens come unstuck in the end ;)

stars_gazing

21-04-2006, 02:48

She killed her literally too (though not personally - think OJ Simpson)... Or so I've read...

Or her memory at least:

bagger

21-04-2006, 05:32

How popular is the queen anyway, I've never met anyone yet who can stand her or her family:|

jossyboy

21-04-2006, 06:40

have you been reading the daily express again

Deavon

21-04-2006, 09:25

Oh well. She always did enjoy a bit of drama.
All the best drama queens come unstuck in the end ;)

:o How very dare you. I will take to my room and sulk...

redrobbo

21-04-2006, 09:44

the_rudeboy

21-04-2006, 11:18

The Queen literally reigns supreme in the public imagination. But none of her current popularity would have been possible if Diana was still striding the front pages today and dominating the agenda.
What about the lovely Camilla? :confused: :suspect:

:hihi:

babychickens

21-04-2006, 11:30

Er, what is wrong with having a monarchy? they bring in huge amounts of revenue (yes yes, all the standard arguments about the bill that the public foots to support them. i saw an article a couple of years ago where the difference between what it costs to support everyone and everything related to the royal family and the amount of revenue/general support to the economy that they bring. i don't recall teh figures, but they're worth much more than their upkeep). They have very little political power other than historical roles. They bring attention to the charities they support. They provide entertainment. They do very little harm IMHO.

Why not focus your energies on a campaign against litter or on helping old people or something else vaguely useful, rather than on removing a major tourist attraction? How about a campaign to get The Bill to not be a soap opera anymore? Don't get me wrong, i have no great interest in the royal family, and i certainly wouldn't support appointing one if we didn't already have one, but they're a valuable economic tool! If the royal family get on your nerves, why not just ignore them?

Greybeard

21-04-2006, 11:31

Now is the time for citizens to act! Let's abolish this tiresome monarchy nonsense and become a republic! :thumbsup:

With an artful dodger like Blair as President ? :o :D

cloudybay

21-04-2006, 11:43

With an artful dodger like Blair as President ? :o :D

I'd much rather say 'God Save The Queen' as opposed to 'God Help Us All'

Don_Kiddick

21-04-2006, 11:44

Is Deavon a closet republican? :suspect:
:
No Sir, just a closet sycophant :hihi:

Anj1364

21-04-2006, 11:51

shoeshine

21-04-2006, 12:09

I wonder how Her Majesty will spend the extra 20p per week her Old Age Pension has been increased by today.............:)

the_rudeboy

21-04-2006, 12:10

I wonder what Her Majesty will spend the extra 20p per week her Old Age Pension has been increased by today.............:)

.....extra sauce on her kebab tonight?

StarSparkle

21-04-2006, 12:22

It's a farce, for someone who let who own sister live an unhappy single (divorced) life and not let her marry the man she loved then let old jug ears marry that old horse. She should be ashamed of herself. Oh but wasn't Margaret out of the way when they married....

At last, an honest posting on this thread.

"The end justifies the means" - that's the royals' motto, always has been.

And people think they no longer have any real power..... oh dear. Convenient myth.

StarSparkle

pk014b7161

21-04-2006, 13:05

oliver cromwell had the best idea :thumbsup:

poppins

21-04-2006, 13:53

What would the attraction be to the UK without the Royal Family ?

slimsid2000

21-04-2006, 13:56

I say the Queen is OK. What harm is she doing anyone? She has no power like monarchs of old and is always punctillious in her observence of constitutional proprioty.

cloudybay

21-04-2006, 13:59

She has no power like monarchs of old and is always punctillious in her observence of constitutional proprioty.

Have you been sniffing photo's of Emma Bunton again?

Macca

21-04-2006, 14:03

....if Diana was still striding the front pages today.....

Have you not seen the Daily Express in the last nine years then??!!!

:D

depoix

21-04-2006, 14:24

Is Deavon a closet republican? :suspect:

Join thousands like me who have signed a petition to demand a referendum on the future of the monarchy when HM dies. Can anyone really relish the prospect of King Charles III and his Consort Camilla?

Now is the time for citizens to act! Let's abolish this tiresome monarchy nonsense and become a republic! :thumbsup: "god save england"

if the loony lot ever take over from the monarchy, red,you fly the flag,are you not a patriot? the queen is britain, she is what people think of when they think of england,foreigners still flock to catch a glimpse of her,she is ours,no one else can buy her,no matter how jealous they may be,they do not have the most regal lady in the world, they may give themselves nonsensical titles such as first lady,but they have neither the lineage,nor the heritage to compete with us

depoix

21-04-2006, 14:26

oliver cromwell had the best idea :thumbsup: they chopped of his head though,and went back to the old ways.....

Tony

21-04-2006, 14:45

Can anyone really relish the prospect of King Charles III and his Consort Camilla?
Oh absolutely! It will be a wonderful change to have somebody who doesn't have to worry about re-election, and will bring the shallow politicians publicly to task over anything that takes his fancy.

We would rue the day that we become the cannon fodder of worthless politicians alone!

Bring him on I say!

sccsux

21-04-2006, 15:26

How I've never met anyone yet who can stand her or her family:|

Well, I'm one person who you've never met who hates the entire idea of a moarchy.

Do away with the lot of 'em:D

Bring him on I say!

On to what?

The gallows:D

AJ sheffield

21-04-2006, 15:30

What would the attraction be to the UK without the Royal Family ?

State benefits
Free healthcare
Housing
Weak border controls

timo

21-04-2006, 15:35

StarSparkle

21-04-2006, 15:40

Everyone knows that Prince Charles is a perfect arse, but the Royal Family itself is an institution worthy of continuation. In any case, the 'secret state' of military and security coves will see to it that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas [or Windsors] remain in place. Republican daydreams will come to naught. If they ever did look anywhere near likely to be fulfilled, we would witness a military coup of the sort Harold Wilson nearly brought upon himself.

Unfortunately, Timo, I'm very much afraid you are spot-on in this post. :( There are far too many vested interests in the continuation of the status quo for there to be any dramatic changes in how Britain is run. Sadly, for the vast majority of us.

StarSparkle

PS Timo - you give Prince Charles far too much credit by calling him a 'perfect' arse! ;)

timo

21-04-2006, 17:06

Starsparkle,
I hope it will not put too much strain upon our mateship on the Forum, oh gorgeous creature, if I told you that I would prefer a military coup to maintain the status quo than surrender the UK to the roundheads of the Republican movement. I am terribly fond of you, but I must speak with candour here even if it serves to outrage you. Frankly, the idea of a republic calls for more than a mere fogyish splutter from me. It calls for an outraged howl of anger and disgust.

When my 'New' League of Empire Loyalists come to power [as surely they must?] myself , Lord Chaverly and a few other good, stout men will steer Britain along a strictly paleoconservative path. We will make republicanism illegal, along with keg bitter, 'moshing', anything 'gothic', multiculturalism, socialism, oven chips, Citroens, The Guardian, Blue Nun 'wine', skateboards, and trigger-happy forum moderators.

shoeshine

21-04-2006, 17:14

I quite liked Blue Nun Wine when I was about 14 yrs old......Christmas only, of course............

cloudybay

21-04-2006, 17:46

When my 'New' League of Empire Loyalists come to power [as surely they must?] myself , Lord Chaverly and a few other good, stout men will steer Britain along a strictly paleoconservative path. We will make republicanism illegal, along with keg bitter, 'moshing', anything 'gothic', multiculturalism, socialism, oven chips, Citroens, The Guardian, Blue Nun 'wine', skateboards, and trigger-happy forum moderators.

How DARE you timo. Oven chips are the staple diet of the entire population of both Birkenhead and Dudley. Would you have them starve to death and have to eat Pot Noodles? I am also incensed at your suggestion that ' stout men' will steer you on a path to world domination. What about Anne Widdecombe? Rumour has it, she drives a Citroen, eats her chips out of some worthless rag and drinks pints of working class session beer. I refuse to comment on the Nun bit................:hihi:

scribe

21-04-2006, 17:47

Happy Birthday your royal crinkley.

To say you have had a very privileged life is an understatement .At birth you
were handed the proverbial silver spoon and in your case a bloody large silver shovel.Through out your 80 years you have had to endure a life of luxury that i am sure none of your humble minions like me would ever be able understand just how hard life has been for you.

But through it all you gave the nation four more royal sprogs who in-turn have had to buckle down and scrape a living as you have done ,i know you come over the border to see us when you have had time from wining and dining you foreign guests etc and sorting out your families problems .

But in contrast to your life there are many eighty year olds in you domain that live life on a meager pension some close to poverty and suffer many daily hardships something you have never had to do .Aint life sweet.

shoeshine

21-04-2006, 17:51

buck

21-04-2006, 18:02

Just think. You could have a president like George W. Bush! Then all your troubles would be over. In fact, when he finished his stint here he could apply for the job over there. Tony Blair owes him big time.
Then you could nuke Iran to your heart's content.

scribe

21-04-2006, 18:19

( buck )Just think. You could have a president like George W. Bush! Then all your troubles would be over. In fact, when he finished his stint here he could apply for the job over there. Tony Blair owes him big time.
Then you could nuke Iran to your heart's content.

Yep , and many many more until the world is mine all mine i tell you.
Then i will make it law every one must wear 60s cloths with a daffodil behind
their ear and say peace man.

timo

21-04-2006, 18:50

I think that one of the first tasks for my 'New' League of Empire Loyalists will be to establish Viet-Cong-style 're-education' camps for the likes of the anti-Royalist 'scribe'. They will be heavily-fortified camps situated in remote enclaves in which inmates will be subjected to subliminal pro-Royalist, pro-Unionist and pro-Conservative messages, and compulsory reading of the Daily Telegraph, The Spectator and Salisbury Review.

StarSparkle

21-04-2006, 18:57

shoeshine

21-04-2006, 18:59

StarSparkle

21-04-2006, 19:08

Starsparkle,
I hope it will not put too much strain upon our mateship on the Forum, oh gorgeous creature, if I told you that I would prefer a military coup to maintain the status quo than surrender the UK to the roundheads of the Republican movement. I am terribly fond of you, but I must speak with candour here even if it serves to outrage you. Frankly, the idea of a republic calls for more than a mere fogyish splutter from me. It calls for an outraged howl of anger and disgust.

:o Timo! I've just read this posting of yours, and I confess myself saddened by it :( - if not at all surprised! ;)

I had hoped your comments the other week re the attempted coup against Wilson were said in something of a tongue-in-cheek manner, but sadly not.

I'm afraid our political paths veer in completely different directions on this issue. Perhaps we'd better just avoid discussing the issue..... :D

StarSparkle

scribe

21-04-2006, 19:38

Thanks for that Timo.

As long as i don't have to endure that crappy Christmas speech i can hack it
i might even get round to doing the Telegraph crossword.Oh in this new Loyalist league of yours who's head will you use for a football.

prioryx

21-04-2006, 19:39

Was'nt there sign held up by some immigrants saying " YOU have your Queen but we have your Country". Let's keep one and get the other back

PhilipB

21-04-2006, 20:06

Strix

21-04-2006, 21:45

Isn't it interesting how many people only see any situation from one perspective?

How conveniently forgotten is the fact that 'Our Liz' locked horns with Mrs T at a time when the rest of the country was powerless (and wingeing) to do anything about the Thatcher machine?

And exactly how much of a privelege is it to live life under the microscope, and glare of the cameras? Every decision about your life affecting a whole country.

If Charles hadn't been trying to 'do his duty' he would never have entertained the limelight seeker he married, forsaking his own wishes, and screwing up his life big time

cloudybay

21-04-2006, 22:18

And exactly how much of a privelege is it to live life under the microscope, and glare of the cameras? Every decision about your life affecting a whole country.

If Charles hadn't been trying to 'do his duty' he would never have entertained the limelight seeker he married, forsaking his own wishes, and screwing up his life big time

I couldn't agree more Strix. Diana was an attention seeker, Charles was beaten into submission by his father. Diana should have been informed that she was purely a 'brood mare'. She used the press when it suited her. However, Charles should have been old enough to know better................

Bartfarst

21-04-2006, 22:41

"god save england"

if the loony lot ever take over from the monarchy, red,you fly the flag,are you not a patriot? the queen is britain, she is what people think of when they think of england,foreigners still flock to catch a glimpse of her,she is ours,no one else can buy her,no matter how jealous they may be,they do not have the most regal lady in the world, they may give themselves nonsensical titles such as first lady,but they have neither the lineage,nor the heritage to compete with us

Absolutely. The Queen is an utterly dedicated professional and those who criticise her should take a long hard look in the mirror before they consider 'casting the first stone'.

As for that neurotic self-publicising bint that caused so much damage to the monarchy before she died, why can't people just accept that she was a mixed-up silly young woman whose playboy lover's driver screwed up? It’s really not that complex, and the conspiracy theorists should get out more.

Bartfarst

21-04-2006, 22:43

Everyone knows that Prince Charles is a perfect arse, but the Royal Family itself is an institution worthy of continuation. In any case, the 'secret state' of military and security coves will see to it that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas [or Windsors] remain in place. Republican daydreams will come to naught. If they ever did look anywhere near likely to be fulfilled, we would witness a military coup of the sort Harold Wilson nearly brought upon himself.

Timo, you disappoint me on the reference to Charles. He's eccentric perhaps, but a very genuine individual and he really, really does try to do what he thinks is right. I can assure you that you'd be converted if you met him - he is a charming and caring individual, and his mind is sharp.

timo

21-04-2006, 23:08

Bartfast,
You will find, dear heart, that I disappoint everyone now and again. Try to concentrate upon that which is beautiful and serene in my character, and ignore my occasional petulant vituperation. Charles is indeed a kind and thoughtful man, but a 'loose cannon' all the same. His desire to be 'the Defender of all Faiths' rather than 'the Faith', and his multiculturalist leanings have a tendency to irritate those of us in the far right fringes of Torydom. He is undoubtedly a very talented man, in his own way. His naval career was a distinguished one, and his schemes to help disadvantaged young people are worthy of respect. Ultimately, I am on his side and support the Royal Family and the continuity of traditions and institutions.

Bartfarst

21-04-2006, 23:18

timo

21-04-2006, 23:23

No need to apologise, old bean. Twas merely a brief misunderstanding between kindred spirits and allies.

Bartfarst

21-04-2006, 23:26

No need to apologise, old bean. Twas merely a brief misunderstanding between kindred spirits and allies.

Indeed - an alliance to be perpetuated, at least until we next both collapse under an onslaught of banning sticks.

Longcol

22-04-2006, 00:46

He is undoubtedly a very talented man, in his own way. His naval career was a distinguished one, and his schemes to help disadvantaged young people are worthy of respect.

And if we were all honest we could easily point to several dozen people who could have achieved exactly the same or more given Charlie boys somewhat priviliged position.

Personally prefer a "head of state" who is politically neutral - so far I think our "lack of constitutional model" has survived the test of time better than most. It has the advantage of being gradually evolved rather than being "written in stone" - can anyone really imagine a constitution written today that even 25% of the country could agree on - apart from Slimsids amendment regarding salsa dancing.

(As an aside the raincoat Phil the Greek wore at Windsor didn't half make him look like Charles De Gaulle!)

Ditz

22-04-2006, 02:18

I quite like the Queen. I think she is the only one of them that is actually a nice person.

I wouldn't like to see the Royal Family scrapped though cos like someone said they bring in a lot of tourists and revenue for the country and I read somewhere that we all pay 1p for their upkeep which isn't a lot if you think about it. Sure its sumthing like £34 million, but they have to spend that on upkeep of houses and castles, trips to other countrys, servants and butlers etc. and at the end of the day, their a piece of our unique history.

We haven't got many things left in this country thats unique and quintessentially british, cos the government in power seem to think that we want to be like Europe; so it would be a shame if the monarchy was scrapped, cos we have nearly always had a King and Queen and I would like to see at least one british tradition held onto. thank you very much tony blair.

Bartfarst

22-04-2006, 11:03

I quite like the Queen. I think she is the only one of them that is actually a nice person.
Rest assured that is not the case. I've met Anne, who is very genuine and friendly and more than any Royal keeps her own programme full of charity work - she's a tireless worker, met Andrew twice and found him to be very pleasant, and spent a good while talking to Charles when hosting him on a visit. Charles is absolutey charming, makes every effort to take an interest in the people he meets, and puts the more nervous or junior individual at ease as well as making it clear that he's as interested in their opinion as anybody else's.

LordChaverly

22-04-2006, 11:32

Anachronisms can have their place in modern societies and i am not against them per se.

However, the key question relating to the monarchy is whether, on balance, it is a benign or a malign anachronism. I believe strongly that it is the latter and should be abolished. This has nothing to do with whether or not Charles is a nice chap or how much charity work his sister does etc. It is the institution which is fundamentally wrong, regardless of the personal merits or faults of the current incumbents.

To give just two examples: the institution is based on the assumption that birth rather than merit can carry with it entitlement to privileges, respect and patronage. It think this assumption still has a malign influence on British society (e.g. the class prejudice still exerting a malign influence in certain key professions, not least in the armed forces). The power of magic blue blood should have no place in the 21st century.

Another example of the malign influence of the monarchy in my view is its role in promoting and maintaining the Commonwealth - an absurd institution which ought to have been consigned to the dustbin of history decades ago. The Queen and her offspring never seem happier than when on official visits to their Commonwealth 'subjects', to be garlanded with flowers and greeted by parties of cavorting schoolchildren in native costumes. The taxpayer of course picks up the bill for the aid disbursements which are an inevitable concomitant of such visits. Similarly, the current incumbents seem particularly keen to promote and defend the interests of ethnic minorities, presumably with the aim of promoting national unity - but their personal knowledge and experience of daily living in the UK is of course severely limited - indeed, it is difficult to know how they could be further removed from the realities of daily life in any country which they visit.

I am mystified as to why even otherwise very sensible and level headed individuals can suddenly leave objectivity behind when commenting upon things monarchical. I am well aware of the importance of maintaining links with our past and heritage, but this should not be regarded as a moral absolute or historical imperative. They should be judged on their merits (and 'merit' and 'monarchy' are two words which sit uncomfortably together).

StarSparkle

22-04-2006, 12:00

Phanerothyme

22-04-2006, 12:29

oliver cromwell had the best idea :thumbsup:

"King Charles II was 5'8" tall at the start of his reign, but only 4' 6" tall at the end of it..." (Monty Python).

I'm sure the whole Royal Family are delightful company, unlike many of their idiotic european counterparts, but that doesn't excuse their existence.

The 'revolt' is in progress, it's just slow. Like boiling a frog.

LordChaverly

22-04-2006, 14:11

Excellent post, Lord Chaverly - well said indeed.

My own sentiments exactly.

StarSparkle

Thank you very much for those kind words Sparkle, which are much appreciated.

The days of bowing and curtsying should be long gone.

slimsid2000

22-04-2006, 15:51

We could do a lot worse than her maj.

sccsux

22-04-2006, 16:09

As for that neurotic self-publicising bint that caused so much damage to the monarchy before she died

The monarchy was becoming a joke way before the "bint" was involved with 'ol big ears:D

Annoni_mouse

22-04-2006, 16:12

We could do a lot worse than her maj.

Sid and Liz,sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G:love:

sccsux

22-04-2006, 16:29

Sid and Liz,sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G:love:

That's just cruel.

Though to which party, I'm still unsure:D

Annoni_mouse

22-04-2006, 16:36

That's just cruel.

Though to which party, I'm still unsure:D

I know - imagine the offspring from such an unholy union :gag:

Freakishly big ears,no chin and terrible speech impediments...Hang on:suspect:

scribe

22-04-2006, 18:14

We could do a lot worse than her maj.

We shall do when Charles takes over.:hihi:

Bartfarst

22-04-2006, 19:08

We shall do when Charles takes over.:hihi:

Well, thank heavens above that our system doesn't let ill-informed, class-jealous buffoons have any say in it!! :hihi:

Annoni_mouse

22-04-2006, 19:10

Well, thank heavens above that our system doesn't let ill-informed, class-jealous buffoons have any say in it!! :hihi:

How can one be 'class-jealous' of a family which has no class?:hihi:

scribe

22-04-2006, 19:16

How can one be 'class-jealous' of a family which has no class?:hihi:

That was a very classy thing to say ,well done you

scribe

22-04-2006, 19:26

Well, thank heavens above that our system doesn't let ill-informed, class-jealous buffoons have any say in it!! :hihi:

I take it your referring to me ,I may not have class like the so called Royals
but i have never committed adultery, have always payed my way
in life and most of all been total honest to my family and friends.

However some people who are pretentious wannabees like to think that they are better than others who fantasize to impress .

shoeshine

22-04-2006, 19:30

I take it your referring to me ,I may not have class like the so called Royals
but i have never committed adultery, have always payed my way
in life and most of all been total honest to my family and friends.

However some people who are pretentious wannabees like to think that they are better than others who fantasize to impress .

Well said scribe...........Bartfast, we are not all of the same mould.....thank heavens for the diversity of views............it would be a barren world of robots otherwise............

Bartfarst

22-04-2006, 19:33

However some people who are pretentious wannabees like to think that they are better than others who fantasize to impress .

An accusation do I detect?

scribe

22-04-2006, 20:00

You can take it how you want.

scribe

22-04-2006, 22:07

You can throw petty little accusations at me if you wish, and then not have the balls to follow it up. That's up to you. Do however be aware that I don't fantasise; I can prove what I claim.

Just because something that I’ve experienced seems far-fetched to you doesn’t mean that I’m a fantasist – I guess it means that I probably live a more interesting and challenging life than you do.

Try to keep your posts on topic rather than making personal attacks and accusations - they just make you look an embittered low-life. That you may well be, but better you set your sights high and try to better yourself
__________________
This was a pm from Bartfarst ,i hope he shows my reply.
Ok prove your claim

cloudybay

22-04-2006, 22:22

Thanks for your contributions so far peeps. Can we try and keep this on topic and quit the personal jibes. Thanks.

Strix

23-04-2006, 14:33

In an ideal world, I think I would object to the concept of a right to rule by birth. However, the reality of the alterantive is that the country winds up being run by a power seeker who has merely been more successful at manipulating the media than the next power seeker was.

I find that scenario really scary :help:

Perhaps we should have a system which enabled the population to force the abdication of a current monarch, enabling the next in line to step into the breach? That should at least prevent any idiot in line from going totally potty (although the current system of government is supposed to keep the situation in check)

JoeP

23-04-2006, 14:37

Mod. Note

Despite being asked, some people just can't stop the personal digs.

I've just given a short ban to a user for not paying attention. I don't wnat to do it again, so please lay off the personal jibes.

Thanks,

Joe

timo

23-04-2006, 20:54

LordChaverly

23-04-2006, 21:02

Does Lord Chaverly realise that his contract as Dean of Arse and Sciences at Central University Neepsend Tip Site is up for review following his previous anti-Royal comments? I think he should be told...

yes my dear Timo, I have been wrestling with my conscience on this one. I realise that my chances of a knighthood have been severely reduced. Nor do I have enough cash to pay Blair for a peerage. But my understanding of the contract is that I can only be removed from office for Gross Moral Terpitude (GMT).

shoeshine

23-04-2006, 21:10

(GMT).

Lord Chav........we put the clocks forward a couple of weeks ago...........:)

shoeshine

23-04-2006, 21:11

Oops Double post.........

purdyamos

23-04-2006, 21:21

Heard you the first time

:P

timo

23-04-2006, 21:27

Lord C,
Oh go on then, you can stay in post. I haven't got the heart to sack my own Doppleganger and stunt double.

shoeshine

23-04-2006, 21:27

Heard you the first time

:P

Sorry purdy........just an echo in here........:)

LordChaverly

23-04-2006, 21:55

Lord C,
Oh go on then, you can stay in post. I haven't got the heart to sack my own Doppleganger and stunt double.

Thank you dear Timo for this typically kind gesture. may i say I am normally on the side of the established order and am a great believer in the magisteral thoughts of the great bard on this subjects of priority and place, as most clearly expressed in Troilus and Cressida (see below - even though it must rank as one of his worst plays). However, when it comes to the place of the house of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha in British public life, I confess to be more than willing to untune that string and hark for what discord may follow. I am not saying that the transition to a meritocratic republicanism should be abrupt. Indeed, I would be perfectly willing to subsidise training courses for the royals in the art of being non-royal - to the extent of teaching prince Charles how to squeeze toothpaste on to his own toothbrush.

The heavens themselves, the planets, and this centre,
Observe degree, priority, and place,
Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
Office, and custom, in all line of order:
And therefore is the glorious planet, Sol,
In noble eminence, enthron'd and spher'd
Amidst the other, whose med'cinable eye
Corrects the ill aspects of planets evil,
And posts, like the commandment of a king,
Sans check, to good and bad. But, when the planets,
In evil mixture to disorder wander,
What plagues and what portents? what mutinies?
What raging of the sea? shaking of earth?
Commotion in the winds? frights, changes, horrors,
Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
The unity and married calm of states
Quite from their fixture! O, when degree is shaken,
(Which is the ladder to all high designs)
The enterprise is sick! How could communities,
Degrees in schools, and brotherhoods in cities,
Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,
The primogenitive and due of birth,
Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,
(But by degree) stand in authentic place?
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And hark what discord follows!

timo

24-04-2006, 00:32

Lord C,
Few Deans in the 'new' Universities would even know who 'the bard' is. One suspects that a few might hazard a vague guess at Harold Robbins perhaps, or maybe Jeffrey Archer. The fact that you are able to quote Shakespeare at all is sufficient reason for me to extend your contract. However, do please refrain from underestimating the diverse and impressive range of skills and abilities of the Prince of Wales.

Prince Charles is perfectly capable of using toothpaste in the correct manner, and of brushing his own teeth. I have it on the very best authority that Charles is now also adept at removing the top of his own boiled egg, and he no longer requires his 'darling Mama' to cut the bread into 'soldiers'. Nor does he need to be tucked into bed at night either, and, having overcome his fear of the dark, does not require that the landing light is left on. You will note that the heir to the throne has progressed to wearing long trousers and a grown-up suit and tie too. He can even tie his own shoelaces now. Charles can look after himself perfectly well in the kitchen department as well, which comes in handy when Camilla is away. He is famous for his Clewtie Dumpling and was taught how to make Bread and Butter Pudding by rough and tough sailors in his distinguished naval days.

purdyamos

24-04-2006, 08:10

Can I just thank Lord C for mentioning Shakespeare on St George's day (It's also his birth and death day, if anyone wasn't aware). I was going to start a thread about Shakespeare yesterday, but thought it would sink like a stone.

Rich

24-04-2006, 13:30

What about the lovely Camilla? :confused: :suspect:

:hihi:

Camilla?! :gag:

I mean come on, Diana was no Holly Valance but even she was better looking than Camilla (ET/Gail Platt neck) Parker-wotsit.

But to be honest I don't think any of the Royal family are exactly oil paintings really.

StarSparkle

24-04-2006, 14:01

Camilla?! :gag:

I mean come on, Diana was no Holly Valance but even she was better looking than Camilla (ET/Gail Platt neck) Parker-wotsit.

But to be honest I don't think any of the Royal family are exactly oil paintings really.

I suspect The_Rudeboy was being sarcastic, Rich

Ousetunes

24-04-2006, 14:02

IBut to be honest I don't think any of the Royal family are exactly oil paintings really.

No, but I bet they own a few....

timo

24-04-2006, 21:50

Is Camilla really as unattractive as Rich suggests, when he compares her with fictional creatures from outer-space and 'Gail Platt' the gerbil-visaged television 'soap' character? Perhaps in comparison with the late Diana Spencer[ 'Queen of Hearts' ] at her peak, we are all ugly? There are ways around such problems in any case. Has Rich not heard of the expression, 'back scuttling'?

shoeshine

24-04-2006, 22:25

Has Rich not heard of the expression, 'back scuttling'?

Don't know about Rich, but I haven't..........perhaps Don_Kiddick or Viking/or both will post a picture of explanation............:)

scribe

14-07-2006, 19:16

I haven't seen the pics of Diana's last moments ,I just wondered if anyone has and what your opinion is .Should they have been printed or not.

sam1984

14-07-2006, 19:18

No, I dont think they should have been printed. Its not fair on William and Harry or her family. Put it this way I wouldnt want to see photos of my own mother dying splashed across papers and magazines, its insensitive and sick

Sierra

14-07-2006, 19:35

Have to agree with the previous poster. They should not have been printed, and I'm glad they weren't. I couldn't believe there were people who would stand around taking pictures instead of helping her. Her two sons were 13 and 15 I think when their mother was killed? How awful for them if those photos had been published. Not to mention her family.

That said, Diana was a fool. Maybe she would have come out of it with age, but she never got the chance. Lots of women have bad marriages. She wasn't being beaten, she didn't have to worry about her children being abused, she didn't have to work a dead end job or worry where her next meal was coming from. She had a life of privilege and insane luxury the rest of us can only dream about. So she had to put up with some unpleasant in-laws? My father in law could give Prince Phillip a run for his money in the nasty department any day of the week.

She has an affair, then goes on TV to tell the world about it?!! That is not the act of a princess. That is pure white trash.

:( Sierra

Jabberwocky

14-07-2006, 19:57

For the sake of her kids.
No, definately not.

Jillybabes

14-07-2006, 20:01

I dont think you should call Diana white trash, she had an affair cos she knew that Charlie was doing the same, and I think he did abuse her in some ways, mentally if not physically. Those pictures should never have been printed no, its sick.

Twiglet

14-07-2006, 20:09

I think you're all missing out on a few things: the pictures were shown in the US on a CNN documentary last year, and are due to be printed in a book very soon.

Sierra

14-07-2006, 20:28

I'm sorry, jillybabes. Anyone who broadcasts their extramarital sexual exploits on telly, no matter who they are, or how tastefully it's done is still trash in my book.

I'm sure Charles was miserable to live with at times, and yes, I think he did put her through mental turmoil. If she'd been smart, she'd have done everything in her power to stay married. Like it or not, that was where her strength lay. That may not be a very feminist view I know, but her husband's family held all the cards, and as long as she was one of them, they couldn't touch her. I think the Queen was willing to be reasonable with her, but she was beyond reasonable. She was purposely trying to hurt her husband and embarrass his family. And she did a swell job. She ended up being her own worst enemy.

I'm actually more angry on Diana's behalf. Like many insecure people, she didn't realize what she had, and was totally outfoxed by that awful Camilla Parker-Bowles. This horrid woman has now taken Diana's place...which was her aim all along. Camilla will be the one who sees William and Harry grow up, who will enjoy their company as adults, and will get to enjoy the grandkids.

As an American, maybe I have it all backwards, but I don't like Camilla at ALL. She's what we'd call a mule in horse harness. And that's being polite.

:) Sierra

boyface

14-07-2006, 20:35

Sierra

14-07-2006, 20:38

Has Chris Morris signed up to the Sheffield Forum? Hurrah!

Just read your first sentence and see how stupid it sounds.

What are you talking about? :confused:

Sierra

Rich

14-07-2006, 20:38

youwhatref

14-07-2006, 20:41

She has an affair, then goes on TV to tell the world about it?!! That is not the act of a princess. That is pure white trash.

:( Sierra

Tut tut Sierra, shame on you :D I'm one of your biggest fans on here but that is so OTT

No they should not be printed, but other countries press/media will publish the photos. She didn't carry the same impact here and although the UK press has voiced its concern of the publishing of the photos they'd only do the same with a famous figure from another country.

Fingers

14-07-2006, 20:44

What are you talking about?

I guess you haven't heard of Chris Morris who is a famous/infamous (in Britain but probably not worldwide) satirist who specialises in spoofs of the media and especially the tabloid/sensationalist media.

Plain Talker

14-07-2006, 20:46

I don't think that pictures of ANYONE as they are dying are in good taste, generally, except perhaps those published with explicit permission of the next of kin, such as in the example of the pictures of Leah Betts, who died after taking ecstasy, to serve as a warning.

It doesn't matter whether she was a princess or a commoner, her "person" or her "rank" was irrelevant, it's horrid for the surviving family to have pics of their dying loved-one splashed all over the trash-rags.

also, on the subject (and conjecture) on whether or not she was an "abused" or "battered" wife,... I will say this:- you don't have to have physical/visible bruises to have been abused. mental abuse is as bad as being punched.

PT

boyface

14-07-2006, 20:49

What are you talking about? :confused:

Sierra

Sorry....must be some offbeat English thing.

Sooooo.....the press were not interested in Diana at all....she banged on the door of Fleet Street?

I don't/didn't even like the woman. But come on.

Anj1364

14-07-2006, 20:58

It's disgusting! Why don't people just leave her alone?

scribe

14-07-2006, 20:59

The editor/owner of the magazine (CHI) was reported as saying the pics were tastefully done and were not offencive .Also when JFK was assassinated pics of his lifeless body was shown around the globe therefore he felt justified in doing the same in the name of public interest.On a personal note i don't think
they should have been done .

boyface

14-07-2006, 21:03

It's disgusting! Why don't people just leave her alone?

I doubt she is bothered.

And besides. Living a freeloading life and looking down on us serfs?

Hang...on. A republic! There's an idea!

Sierra

14-07-2006, 21:56

At last we agree on something, huh Rich? ;)

boyface,

Diana was certainly a publicity hound. That was her mistake. I know the poor dear couldn't step outside her door, and while that must've been awful, if she'd been smart, she would've kept as low as profile as she could, kept her mouth shut, and kept her private life private. She would've been better off. It infuriates me that her life was cut short, and saddens me that her boys were robbed of their mother.

PT,

I understand what you're saying, and I totally agree with you about not all abuse being physical. The point I was trying to make was that she had many more options available to her than the average woman.

youwhatref,

I'm one of your biggest fans, too. ;) I'm sorry, it must be an American thing. We tend to be painfully blunt, and call things what they are. I meant no disrespect to her memory, but her behavior for a princess was ruddy outrageous. I know not all you Brits love the Royal Family, but it's a unique thing about England, we have nothing like them here in the states. It was a little disappointing to see the Royals bickering amongst themselves, and realize that they are just people, like everyone else.

Fingers,

nope, never heard of Chris Morris. Must look him up.

:) Sierra

English Glory

14-07-2006, 22:25

Would Diana, when she was alive, have allowed to show damning, distasteful pictures if it was to have harmed the Royal Family? yes. She chased the Yankee dollar. She had already sold her soul to the media when she was alive, what difference does it make now?

Not that it was her fault that a little bit was eaten out of the once proud stoic British pysche when she snuffed it. Incredibly dense scenes with millions crying and with little regard to the vast hurt she caused the Royal Family, stoked up by republicans no doubt.

Draggletail

15-07-2006, 01:11

......It was a little disappointing to see the Royals bickering amongst themselves, and realize that they are just people, like everyone else.

:) Sierra
Thats the reality. Just .... people..... highly privileged grossly under taxed, out of touch with the country they 'serve' but just people at the end of the day. Not gods, nothing special, they didn't ask to be born into the position I suppose....

When we were little kids, we thought that the queen didn't even fart because she was a perfect human being.

I kid you not.

Why so disappointed Sierra? Did you really expect a true magical world of princes and princesses here? :)

bornfree

15-07-2006, 01:56

I haven't seen the pics of Diana's last moments ,I just wondered if anyone has and what your opinion is .Should they have been printed or not.

no they shouldn't. its disrespectful.

Sierra

15-07-2006, 02:46

Well Draggle, maybe not magic. Growing up in California where movies and TV shows are a business, I knew at a young age that magic wasn't real. Having had no experience with them, I just expected royalty to be different somehow.

As I said, we have nothing like them in America. Sure there are rich people, but a wealthy person who started out poor isn't royalty. They call the Kennedys american royalty. But pah. Go back a couple generations and Joseph Kennedy's grandfather was an immigrant saloon keeper in Boston. My own paternal great-grandfather was just as Irish, just as greedy, and about as classy. (Sorry Grampa, don't be mad, rest in peace ok?)

Diana and I were close in age. On her wedding day, I had to go to school, then work. I took the bus from the tiny apartment in San Francisco I shared with my boyfriend. The cheerful lady bus driver was a British ex-pat who had the radio blasting and tuned to the wedding so everyone could hear it. I watched snippets of the ceremony on TV at work. I remember feeling resentful at how hard I had things at the time, and lamented that a mere accident of birth (and religion, I'm Catholic) prevented me from marrying a prince. I also remember feeling envious and a little wistful at the wonderful life I imagined this girl was going to have, everything seemed so perfect. It was sad when their marriage fell apart, and even sadder when they both resorted to "telling their side of things" on TV. I still can't get over that. I don't even like telling my troubles to my own mother.

I guess I expected better from them. They're supposed to be better than us mere mortals.

:) Sierra

bagger

15-07-2006, 05:57

What type of person would want to look at a photo of her dying?:confused: :confused:

Daven

15-07-2006, 07:32

What type of person would want to look at a photo of her dying?:confused: :confused:
Sadly there are a lot of ghoulish people out there !

Plain Talker

15-07-2006, 08:23

PT,

I understand what you're saying, and I totally agree with you about not all abuse being physical. The point I was trying to make was that she had many more options available to her than the average woman.
Sierra

I can see where you are coming from on that, because of her priveliged position, but I would say, because (at that point) virtually no heir to the throne had divorced, (previously), she possibly had less options of how and where to escape.

There would be no "going to ground in a women's refuge" for her... Diana was too high profile.

I am not supporting her, BTW, I am not a royalist, at all. I am looking at her situation from the angle of an allegedly abused wife, in the public eye.

My personal opinion of her was that she was a clothes horse, albeit a fairly pretty one, and, as someone above described her, a "publicity-hound".(media tart?)

PT

Draggletail

15-07-2006, 11:58

...... Diana and I were close in age. On her wedding day, I had to go to school, then work. I took the bus from the tiny apartment in San Francisco I shared with my boyfriend. The cheerful lady bus driver was a British ex-pat who had the radio blasting and tuned to the wedding so everyone could hear it. I watched snippets of the ceremony on TV at work. I remember feeling resentful at how hard I had things at the time, and lamented that a mere accident of birth (and religion, I'm Catholic) prevented me from marrying a prince. I also remember feeling envious and a little wistful at the wonderful life I imagined this girl was going to have, everything seemed so perfect. It was sad when their marriage fell apart, and even sadder when they both resorted to "telling their side of things" on TV. I still can't get over that. I don't even like telling my troubles to my own mother.

I guess I expected better from them. They're supposed to be better than us mere mortals.

:) Sierra
Interesting to hear a bit about your life back then, and how the royal wedding made you feel Sierra.

In my home town and all over the country people were holding 'street parties' to celebrate the wedding (A very 'un-british' thing to do - folks must have got caught up in the 'fairy tale')

I didn't go to one, of course ;)

cgksheff

15-07-2006, 12:21

The picture in question has been on the internet for several years now.

Sierra

15-07-2006, 15:47

I can see where you are coming from on that, because of her priveliged position, but I would say, because (at that point) virtually no heir to the throne had divorced, (previously), she possibly had less options of how and where to escape.

There would be no "going to ground in a women's refuge" for her... Diana was too high profile.

I am not supporting her, BTW, I am not a royalist, at all. I am looking at her situation from the angle of an allegedly abused wife, in the public eye.

My personal opinion of her was that she was a clothes horse, albeit a fairly pretty one, and, as someone above described her, a "publicity-hound".(media tart?)

PT

Media tart? Bwahahaha! I think I like that one better. I did feel bad for her at first because it seemed she couldn't do the simplest things without being photographed, which must've got old FAST. But as the years passed, I rather lost some of my sympathy for her. Whatever marital problems they were having, surely blabbing to the world about them could only make things worse.

Shhhhh. If I were British, I would probably have been one of those people screaming and waving a flag for the television cameras on Charles and Diana's wedding day. :suspect:

Interesting to hear a bit about your life back then, and how the royal wedding made you feel Sierra.

In my home town and all over the country people were holding 'street parties' to celebrate the wedding (A very 'un-british' thing to do - folks must have got caught up in the 'fairy tale')

I didn't go to one, of course ;)

Of course not. Heh.

You'd all be surprised at how many British expats there are living in California. I used to run into at least one a day when I lived in San Francisco. The conversation would go something like this:

Me: Ahhh, your English.
Them: Yes luv, where are you from?
Me: Oh, right here. Do you miss home?
Them: Oh yes. But I visit now and again, and my family comes to see me. They always stay with me, too. *rolls eyes*
Me: Would you ever go back?
Them: Oh no! I love it here, the weather is so lovely. I'm married to an american and my children were all born here, I'll never leave.

My very favorites were the bus driver I mentioned, a waitress at a hamburger place called Zim's, who must have made hundreds of dollars a day in tips. She had a huge group of regulars who adored her. We always left her whatever we could afford (which wasn't much), and she always treated everyone the same. A London born cable car gripman who was fond of telling EVERYONE that cable cars were first introduced to San Francisco by fellow Londoner and wire cable manufacturer Andrew Smith Hallidie (http://baseportal.com/cgi-bin/baseportal.pl?htx=/zpub2000/sfentries&cmd=list&range=0,50&cmd=all&Id=121%20target=). He was such a nice man, and better entertainment that any TV show at the time.

:) Sierra

willman

15-07-2006, 15:58

liquid_pig

15-07-2006, 16:13

I haven't seen the pics of Diana's last moments ,I just wondered if anyone has and what your opinion is .Should they have been printed or not.
OF COURSE NOT!!!!. yet another pointless thread

willman

15-07-2006, 16:16

OF COURSE NOT!!!!. yet another pointless thread
its not pointless if you have an opinion. if its pointless keep your small minded criticisms to yourself.

liquid_pig

15-07-2006, 16:30

its not pointless if you have an opinion. if its pointless keep your small minded criticisms to yourself.
I'm afraid that IS my opinion.:loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Sierra

15-07-2006, 16:35

I'm afraid that IS my opinion.:loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Yay! Keep bumping our thread to the top so more people will see it! Thanks :thumbsup:

:) Sierra

Zaytsev

15-07-2006, 16:40

why is she so special.
we see pictures of people being shot,there are photos of hangings published.
there are alleged photos of marilyn monroe under lock & key.
and the famous jfk shooting is shown frequently. how did his family feel.
she's no better & no worse than he was.

i'm not saying it's pleasant or necessary,but for gods sake no one here actually knew her.

I couldn't agree more.
The public outpouring of grief at the time of her death was truly stomach churning and now the outcry over these pictures.:loopy:
I believe a good proportion of the people who put flowers at the gates of her home have never put flowers on their own relatives graves. I also remember the huge number of morons lining the funeral route with both still and video cameras taking shots of the passing coffin. They are probably the very same people who complained bitterly about the paparazzi 'hounding her to her death' and yet buy OK and Hello magazine religously. I can't seem to remember taking a camera to any funeral I've been to.
Ok, so it has served no purpose printing them, but for gods sake lets get this in perspective. We are seeing dead bodies of children on the news on a regular basis from around the world and I don't see any evidence of a public outcry over that.

scribe

15-07-2006, 16:50

OF COURSE NOT!!!!. yet another pointless thread

I was asking for peoples views on this and interestingly enough there are some good and valid points raised .Until i saw your pointless contribution,
if you don't like what your reading go elsewere .

laura21

15-07-2006, 17:09

not that i want to see them but if this was an ordinary person in their last moments they would have printed it. fair enough it was princess Diana but if they don't do it to her why do they do it to other people and their family.
does that make sense?

liquid_pig

15-07-2006, 17:27

Sierra

15-07-2006, 17:39

This REALLY should be the end of it.:thumbsup:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1304303#post1304303

Well, ok! Looks like you've identified another pointless thread! Thanks so much for your help! I'm sure others who are contributing to pointless threads are in dire need of being told about it, why don't you run along and see if you can find any more? If we need you again we'll call you. Goodbye. Goodbye now. See you later, goodbye....

:) Sierra

melthebell

15-07-2006, 18:00

well im going to be devils advocate here :)

yes all pictures showing somebody dead or dying is going to be upsetting and offensive to the persons family and friends, thats understandable.

but

isnt putting photos of such things into the public domain a benefit for information and knowledge to some people who may want to see, most will not, some will

its like that plane hijack film, shouldnt the worldwide public see how brave the passengers were and what happened on that flight because the families of the dead objected as its too harrowing?
of course its gonna be upsetting to them

AJ sheffield

15-07-2006, 18:07

Porn has had its day and now death and mutilation seem to be the big thing. You only have to look on the average 14 year olds mobile to see how things are becoming more acceptable nowadays.

Death....its the new porn.

Fingers

15-07-2006, 18:59

The public outpouring of grief at the time of her death was truly stomach churning and now the outcry over these pictures.:loopy:
I believe a good proportion of the people who put flowers at the gates of her home have never put flowers on their own relatives graves. I also remember the huge number of morons lining the funeral route with both still and video cameras taking shots of the passing coffin. They are probably the very same people who complained bitterly about the paparazzi 'hounding her to her death' and yet buy OK and Hello magazine religously.

This may be slightly off-topic but this reminds me of the time when some photographers used ladders to look over a wall and take photos of Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley in the garden of a house. I got on a train and a woman who was talking to someone sitting opposite her said the invasion of their privacy was disgusting and her friend or relative agreed. When I turned round I couldn't see the surface of the table at which they were sitting because it was covered in what looked like half a dozen tabloid newspapers containing these disgusting photos.

Having said that I think the outcry over the last Diana photograph is relatively restrained. I was half-expecting Italian embassies to be destroyed by angry mobs, pizza takeaways and Italian restaurants to be attacked and the high priest of the church of Diana to offer a reward to anyone who killed the editor of the magazine which published the photo.

matsalleh

15-07-2006, 22:43

Having said that I think the outcry over the last Diana photograph is relatively restrained.
If the rest of the media had not "hyped" the pictures up and given them world wide publicity,most people would not have known about them.if people did not buy ths garbage it would not happen.

Plain Talker

15-07-2006, 23:11

true, matsalleh, but it was a mantra in the newspaper and magazine publishing world that putting diana on the cover of their mag/paper/ trash-rag boosted the circulation by at least half as much again.

PT

poppins

15-07-2006, 23:32

I was on a train going back to Sheffield on the day she died or maybe it was the day after, anyhow I couldn't belive the jokes flying about about her dying, people were even standing up on the train telling them out loud, most were Sheffielders i assume as they all got off the Sheffield stop with me.

Then on TV to see every one crying, what a joke! and all those thousands of people stading in line at her Funeral, did they all get the day off work ? or did they think it was a dole line they were stood it:hihi:

artisan

08-12-2006, 22:10

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162041.stm

If princess Diana was not pregnant, and was not intending to marry, as this report indicates, then what was the motive behind her murder?
If they would only come clean in the first place, we would have no need of all these suspiscions.
The authorities encourage these 'conspiracy theories' in order to divert attention from the real situation, I am sure :suspect:

Greybeard

08-12-2006, 22:19

And what is 'the real situation' may one ask ? ;)

artisan

08-12-2006, 22:36

And what is 'the real situation' may one ask ? ;)
That is the $64000 question, what is the real situation?
As Pilate asked 'What is Truth'
Shall we ever know?

donuticus

08-12-2006, 22:41

The truth as it appears = Chauffeur Drunk hits tunnel wall Dodi Fayed and Princess Di, die pretty straight forward.

artisan

08-12-2006, 22:53

The truth as it appears = Chauffeur Drunk hits tunnel wall Dodi Fayed and Princess Di, die pretty straight forward.
Yes. It is too straight forward dont you think?
All too convenient and parcelled up.
Nothing is ever as it seems at first look. No matter what this inquest says, it will not be accepted. They should have done it straightaway.
But the result could have stopped Charles in his tracks couldnt it?
And that would never do would it?

me-and-pippo

08-12-2006, 22:57

BoroughGal

08-12-2006, 23:00

Yes. It is too straight forward dont you think?
All too convenient and parcelled up.

Couldn't you say this about all fatal accidents? Or don't they happen to famous people?

cloudybay

08-12-2006, 23:04

Yes. It is too straight forward dont you think?
All too convenient and parcelled up.
Nothing is ever as it seems at first look. No matter what this inquest says, it will not be accepted. They should have done it straightaway.
But the result could have stopped Charles in his tracks couldn't it?
And that would never do would it?

Diana knew exactly what she was doing when she married a sewer rat. It was all about image. Love never came in to it. Diana was also probably the most manipulative of females but not the smartest .................live by the sword and die by the sword................her death is questionable but predictable.

peterdo

08-12-2006, 23:10

Does anyone really care?

artisan

08-12-2006, 23:11

You are saying it was murder, so why ask others for a reason that you claim to know yourself.
No, I dont claim to know the reason, that is what I am saying.
They went to all that trouble, and the obvious reasons were not the motive.
So what was the motive?
Or am I to understand that they did it for a laugh?
People under heavy protection, do not get killed by accident. Especially, out of sight from surveillance, and in highly suspicious circumstances.

artisan

08-12-2006, 23:16

Does anyone really care?
Yes I do for one, I am not bothered who lived and died.
The aim is to build up a dossier pointing the arrow straight at the House of Windsor.
Then to use this evidence, when the time comes, to present the case against the automatic tranference of power to that nonentity of a son of Eizabeth Windsor.
It will be one step further to the Republic we deserve.

cloudybay

08-12-2006, 23:20

Yes I do for one, I am not bothered who lived and died.
The aim is to build up a dossier pointing the arrow straight at the House of Windsor.
Then to use this evidence, when the time comes, to present the case against the automatic tranference of power to that nonentity of a son of Eizabeth Windsor.
It will be one step further to the Republic we deserve.

Gosh you really do adore me, don't you? PM Cloudbay? Nothing better !

donuticus

08-12-2006, 23:55

artisan

09-12-2006, 00:17

NURSE................................... fetch the lithium artisan is at it again !!!!!!!!!!! :hihi:

Explain to me why it cant have been just a tragic accident, that should bring home the issue of traveling without your seat belt on in a car being driven by a drunk !
Henri Paul was a grown man, an experienced driver, and presumably a man who knew the effects alcohol had on his brain and body.
If such a man gets behind the wheel of a car, knowing he is under the influence, he does not drive like a maniac.
On the contrary, your senses are hieghtened, as you know the effects on your system. You take no risks.
(A number of years ago, one police force took to pulling people over who were driving really well in order to 'congratulate' them on their good driving.
The aim of this was to catch middle aged men who had had a drink.)
Such is the skill of experience, you can drive like clockwork.
To suggest that M.Paul lost control of the car through his own fault is an insult to a man who cannot defend himself.
It is far more likely that the fault laid with the vehicle itself, or maybe due to the amnesia of her protection men.

donuticus

09-12-2006, 00:20

Henri Paul was a grown man, an experienced driver, and presumably a man who knew the effects alcohol had on his brain and body.
If such a man gets behind the wheel of a car, knowing he is under the influence, he does not drive like a maniac.
On the contrary, your senses are hieghtened, as you know the effects on your system. You take no risks.
(A number of years ago, one police force took to pulling people over who were driving really well in order to 'congratulate' them on their good driving.
The aim of this was to catch middle aged men who had had a drink.)
Such is the skill of experience, you can drive like clockwork.
To suggest that M.Paul lost control of the car through his own fault is an insult to a man who cannot defend himself.
It is far more likely that the fault laid with the vehicle itself, or maybe due to the amnesia of her protection men.

Are you saying that he would have been a better driver, because he had alcohol in his system ? If so im going for a long lie down because that is ridiculous !

Heyesey

09-12-2006, 00:21

Henri Paul was a grown man, an experienced driver, and presumably a man who knew the effects alcohol had on his brain and body.
If such a man gets behind the wheel of a car, knowing he is under the influence, he does not drive like a maniac.

He was doing a hundred and eighty miles an hour in a city centre; presumably on the orders of his employer who was sitting in the back seat. In such circumstances, a fatal crash is not only possible but highly likely.

Why do so many people have a problem with this? It's so goddam obvious what happened that I'm not even sure why there has to be an inquest.

BoroughGal

09-12-2006, 00:24

Henri Paul was a grown man, an experienced driver, and presumably a man who knew the effects alcohol had on his brain and body.
If such a man gets behind the wheel of a car, knowing he is under the influence, he does not drive like a maniac.
On the contrary, your senses are hieghtened, as you know the effects on your system. You take no risks.
(A number of years ago, one police force took to pulling people over who were driving really well in order to 'congratulate' them on their good driving.
The aim of this was to catch middle aged men who had had a drink.)
Such is the skill of experience, you can drive like clockwork.
To suggest that M.Paul lost control of the car through his own fault is an insult to a man who cannot defend himself.
It is far more likely that the fault laid with the vehicle itself, or maybe due to the amnesia of her protection men.

Funnily enough, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but sometimes people that have drunk too much alcohol drive like nutters. Especially if their adrenaline is pumping because - say for instance - they're being chased by a pack of photographers.....?

Heyesey

09-12-2006, 00:27

Funnily enough, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but sometimes people that have drunk too much alcohol drive like nutters.

At 180mph, it's doubtful being clear of alcohol would have made any difference. Not even a stone-cold sober person can keep control of the car at that speed; even if his name is Michael Schumacher, the tiniest problem with the steering at 180mph and he's going to drive into a wall.

The real question is why was he driving so fast; the only logical answer is that his employer ordered him to. Since his employer is dead, there's no way of confirming or denying whether this was the case, but nobody with any sense would doubt it.

artisan

09-12-2006, 00:28

Are you saying that he would have been a better driver, because he had alcohol in his system ? If so im going for a long lie down because that is ridiculous !
No and you know I am not.
What I am saying is that an experienced man would not be driving city streets at 90+ mph, with such important people on board.
He had no reason to, a few newspaper men following, why the need to get away?
To me there are two questions
Was the car a sound vehicle
Who was following them
If you are given the answers to those, then you may find out the reasons for Henri Pauls errant driving.

donuticus

09-12-2006, 00:28

He was doing 180mph ?!!?!?!?! What was he driving ?

Heyesey

09-12-2006, 00:30

No and you know I am not.
What I am saying is that an experienced man would not be driving city streets at 90+ mph, with such important people on board.

If al-Fayed tells him to go fast, he goes fast. That's the nature of employment, and people that rich don't really care about speeding fines.

Heyesey

09-12-2006, 00:30

He was doing 180mph ?!!?!?!?! What was he driving ?

BMW or a Mercedes, I believe; I forget which. Many top-range cars are capable over doing well over 200mph.

donuticus

09-12-2006, 00:30

On the contrary, your senses are hieghtened, as you know the effects on your system. You take no risks.

This is what I was referring to.

AJ sheffield

09-12-2006, 00:32

I thought the car was travelling at about 80 mph.

donuticus

09-12-2006, 00:33

BMW or a Mercedes, I believe; I forget which. Many top-range cars are capable over doing well over 200mph.

I wasn't disputing the speed I just never realised how fast he was going.

Would have only needed to swerve slightly aggressively and the fish tail would have put you into a wall faster than you can say Richard Hammond.

A patch of water could have caused an aqua plane at that speed you would have hit the wall before you knew you'd lost control.

AJ sheffield

09-12-2006, 00:34

If they were travelling at that speed it was an accident waiting to happen anyway...regardless of other factors.

artisan

09-12-2006, 00:38

I wasn't disputing the speed I just never realised how fast he was going.

Would have only needed to swerve slightly aggressively and the fish tail would have put you into a wall faster than you can say Richard Hammond.
The speed was below 90 mph.
180 in Paris? :hihi:
You talk of fish tailing, there is definitly something fishy about this whole thing.

Henrietta

09-12-2006, 01:15

..an experienced driver, and presumably a man who knew the effects alcohol had on his brain and body.
If such a man gets behind the wheel of a car, knowing he is under the influence, he does not drive like a maniac.
On the contrary, your senses are hieghtened, as you know the effects on your system. You take no risks.
(A number of years ago, one police force took to pulling people over who were driving really well in order to 'congratulate' them on their good driving.
The aim of this was to catch middle aged men who had had a drink.)
Such is the skill of experience, you can drive like clockwork
That is the funniest load of krud I have read in a long while. :hihi:

Or, to put it bluntly - what you have said is the opposite of reality.

Do you actually believe that, or are you playing devils' advocate??

You do appreciate of course, that those are the words of drunk-drivers justifying their selfish and ill thought out actions when getting behind the wheel

Is this something you frequently do?
.

Livewirex

09-12-2006, 01:55

Anyone know where Trevor Reece Jones the guard that lived is? You remember him ex SAS he might have the answer. He was supposed to be guarding Dodi, but don't you stay in the SAS reserve for so long after you leave the regiment?

Halibut

09-12-2006, 06:52

Henri Paul was a grown man, an experienced driver, and presumably a man who knew the effects alcohol had on his brain and body.
If such a man gets behind the wheel of a car, knowing he is under the influence, he does not drive like a maniac.
On the contrary, your senses are hieghtened, as you know the effects on your system. You take no risks.
(A number of years ago, one police force took to pulling people over who were driving really well in order to 'congratulate' them on their good driving.
The aim of this was to catch middle aged men who had had a drink.)
Such is the skill of experience, you can drive like clockwork.
To suggest that M.Paul lost control of the car through his own fault is an insult to a man who cannot defend himself.
It is far more likely that the fault laid with the vehicle itself, or maybe due to the amnesia of her protection men.

artisan, the driver was three times over the limit; in other words pished.
''It is more likely that the fault laid with the vehicle itself'' - no, it's more likely that the moon is made of green cheese.

Halibut

09-12-2006, 07:22

artisan

09-12-2006, 08:21

That is the funniest load of krud I have read in a long while. :hihi:

Or, to put it bluntly - what you have said is the opposite of reality.

Do you actually believe that, or are you playing devils' advocate??

You do appreciate of course, that those are the words of drunk-drivers justifying their selfish and ill thought out actions when getting behind the wheel

Is this something you frequently do?
.
Never, I rely on my licence for my work.
If I lost my licence, it would back to working for the man 8 while 6 again.
Not for me.:thumbsup:

carcrash

09-12-2006, 08:23

I wonder why the only person who wore a seatbelt survived

Longcol

09-12-2006, 08:55

The speed was below 90 mph.
180 in Paris? :hihi:
You talk of fish tailing, there is definitly something fishy about this whole thing.

Even 80 mph in a city is an accident waiting to happen - especially if the driver is well over the legal limit and the passengers aren't wearing seatbelts.

Grandad.Malky

09-12-2006, 09:36

BMW or a Mercedes, I believe; I forget which. Many top-range cars are capable over doing well over 200mph.

Are you confusing km with miles

Mercedes sports car top speed 155mph

http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedkingdom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_website/en/home_mpc/passenger_cars/home/products/amg/sl_55_amg_cab.0007.0002.html

Looking through their site it would seem the full range are all limited to 155 mph.

“As of April 2006. the top speeds of Formula 1 cars are a little over 300 km/h at high-downforce tracks .”

1 km/h = 0.621371192 mph

300 km/h 186 mph

Are you suggesting he was driving as fast as an F1 Driver?

Henrietta

09-12-2006, 10:42

Never, I rely on my licence for my work
Jolly good. Although if you believe what you posted I'm not sure why you wouldn't risk drink-driving - if it makes you such an improved and superb driver compared to sober - or is it because you might get pulled for having caused suspiscion from such impeccable driving :rolleyes:

Driving whilst under any influence does not improve your ability whatsoever and will only lead to bad judgement, errors and sadly a mistaken belief that you are a better driver :loopy:
.

downloads

09-12-2006, 11:14

I dont think one should make an issue over it.

Halibut

09-12-2006, 11:16

I dont think one should make an issue over it.

Over what? It's hard to know what you mean unless you, err, tell us what you mean.

Darbees

09-12-2006, 12:02

He was doing a hundred and eighty miles an hour in a city centre; presumably on the orders of his employer who was sitting in the back seat. In such circumstances, a fatal crash is not only possible but highly likely.

Why do so many people have a problem with this? It's so goddam obvious what happened that I'm not even sure why there has to be an inquest.Hundred and eighty miles an hour? Where did you get that from, you got any idea what travelling at that speed is like? I don't think that car will go that fast and there was no way he was doing that speed. There would have been nothing left of the car and the bodyguard wouldn't have survived.

BMW or a Mercedes, I believe; I forget which. Many top-range cars are capable over doing well over 200mph. Not big saloon cars, only very powerful sports supercars will do that.

Darbees

09-12-2006, 12:10

Henri Paul was a grown man, an experienced driver, and presumably a man who knew the effects alcohol had on his brain and body.
If such a man gets behind the wheel of a car, knowing he is under the influence, he does not drive like a maniac.
On the contrary, your senses are hieghtened, as you know the effects on your system. You take no risks.
(A number of years ago, one police force took to pulling people over who were driving really well in order to 'congratulate' them on their good driving.
The aim of this was to catch middle aged men who had had a drink.)
Such is the skill of experience, you can drive like clockwork.
To suggest that M.Paul lost control of the car through his own fault is an insult to a man who cannot defend himself.
It is far more likely that the fault laid with the vehicle itself, or maybe due to the amnesia of her protection men.That is utter nonsense. I have ridden motorcycles after only one pint and I can tell that my senses are impaired, my judgement is worse but even so it made me I'm over confident. I now never drink at all when riding.

Good driving does NOT work like clockwork, clockwork does exactly the same thing all the time and does not make decisions based on the dynamics of what is going on around it as you have to do when driving.

Tony

09-12-2006, 12:19

Question:what was the motive behind her murder death ?
Anwer: Selling more newspapers.

For an engineer you've got a wonderfully vivid imagination artisan, and sorry for fiddling with your words. ;)

squeakyclean

09-12-2006, 14:03

I watched yet another programme on this last week, and yet agin I am a little sceptical about the conspiracy claims.

One thing that we do know is that the queen disliked Diana immensley, and in the weeks prior to her death,the tabloids were full of photo's of Diana and Dodi frolicking on a yacht etc. I doubt though whether Diana's relationship with Dodi would have been enough to have her killed.

There were questions raised about the amount of time it took the ambulance to reach the hospital, and was it delayed on purpose? My this must have been one mega operation (if it was true) which I very much doubt.

Darbees

09-12-2006, 14:29

All we really need to prove once and for all to stop this conspiracy theory b******s is irrefutable proof that Henri was over the limit. I think we have had that but people choose not to believe it because it doesn't suit their theory.

If someone is ****** and driving a big heavy S Class Merc with 4 adults in it in the dark in a tunnel it is not too difficult to swerve a little. In that instance there were unprotected concrete pillars strong enough to hold up hundred of tons of tunnel roof. The pillar would not flex in the slightest when he hit it and he then completely lost control of it which thus caused a huge accident. The three people killed were not wearing seatbelts. Not many unbelted people walk away from 80mph crashes into solid concrete.

The moral of the whole story is clunk click every trip no matter how famous you are and don't drink and drive or be driven.

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 14:38

The truth as it appears = Chauffeur Drunk hits tunnel wall Dodi Fayed and Princess Di, die pretty straight forward.

Not this old chestnut again - Donuticus, it has been done to death before now that Henri Paul was NOT drunk - how much repetition of this fact does it take to get it into people's heads?

StarSparkle

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 14:45

Question:
Anwer: Selling more newspapers.

For an engineer you've got a wonderfully vivid imagination artisan, and sorry for fiddling with your words. ;)

Oh come on, Tony - we've discussed this before, and you know there are so many holes in the Establishment line on this 'accident' it beggars belief. For anyone who might be interested, my thoughts on this can be found on a previous thread on the same subject.

StarSparkle

Darbees

09-12-2006, 14:47

Not this old chestnut again - Donuticus, it has been done to death before now that Henri Paul was NOT drunk - how much repetition of this fact does it take to get it into people's heads?

StarSparkleIs this part of the conspiracy then in todays news? Or is it typical Telegraph, typical BBC, typical CNN or typical whoever reports it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/09/ndiana09.xml

Much of this is being driven by a man who has lost his son, one of worst things that can happen to anyone, but who also has a well documented anti UK government and royal family agenda.

Even in the highly unlikely event of it being proved to be a conspiracy, so what.

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 14:50

Is this part of the conspiracy then in todays news? Or is it typical Telegraph, typical BBC, typical CNN or typical whoever reports it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/09/ndiana09.xml

Much of this is being driven by a man who has lost his son, one of worst things that can happen to anyone, but who also has a well documented anti UK government and royal family agenda.

Even in the highly unlikely event of it being proved to be a conspiracy, so what.

I beg your pardon? You think it's ok to go around plotting to murder people and then carrying it out? What planet are you on? Of course it matters, to anyone who cares about justice and civilised behaviour.

StarSparkle

Darbees

09-12-2006, 14:53

I beg your pardon? You think it's ok to go around plotting to murder people and then carrying it out? What planet are you on? Of course it matters, to anyone who cares about justice and civilised behaviour.

StarSparkle
I don't mean that murder by "the authorities" should be condoned. But the governments get up to all kinds of sneaky stuff, look at this poisoned Russian for example.

I meant "so what" in this particular instance, what exactly would happen if it were found to be a conspiracy?

artisan

09-12-2006, 14:56

Question:
Anwer: Selling more newspapers.
For an engineer you've got a wonderfully vivid imagination artisan, and sorry for fiddling with your words. ;)
Engineers need imagination, or nothing would ever be made.
However it does not need much imagination to see this for the greatest cover up since the last Ice Age.
People who believe the official line must the most easily led donkeys on the planet.
I know it is easy to do as you are told, but where would the world be, if we believed all the guff we are fed every day?

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 15:03

I don't mean that murder by "the authorities" should be condoned. But the governments get up to all kinds of sneaky stuff, look at this poisoned Russian for example.

I meant "so what" in this particular instance, what exactly would happen if it were found to be a conspiracy?

I really don't get what you're trying to say here - are you saying governments should be allowed to get away with doing anything they choose to, however illegal it is? Are you saying it's ok to murder people, if it's done by a government agency or on behalf of a government?

We all know all kinds of 'black ops' go on in the real world, but that doesn't mean we should blindly allow them to happen, hide them under the carpet or condone them in any way.

I find your attitude quite disturbing.

StarSparkle

Darbees

09-12-2006, 15:07

I really don't get what you're trying to say here - are you saying governments should be allowed to get away with doing anything they choose to, however illegal it is? Are you saying it's ok to murder people, if it's done by a government agency or on behalf of a government?

We all know all kinds of 'black ops' go on in the real world, but that doesn't mean we should blindly allow them to happen, hide them under the carpet or condone them in any way.

I find your attitude quite disturbing.

StarSparkleYour attitude of not reading my post properly could be deemed as slightly disturbing too. I am saying "so what" in this instance 9 years after the event.

However I don't condone murder by anyone but I don't think Diana was murdered.

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 15:17

Your attitude of not reading my post properly could be deemed as slightly disturbing too. I am saying "so what" in this instance 9 years after the event.

However I don't condone murder by anyone but I don't think Diana was murdered.

You don't think Diana was murdered; however, many other people DO believe she was murdered, and many more believe that, whatever happened, there are numerous questions about the whys and wherefores surrounding the 'accident' that have not been satisfactorily answered.

If a murder has been committed, then those responsible should be brought to justice however much time has gone by. 9 years is nothing.

StarSparkle

Twiglet

09-12-2006, 15:43

Not this old chestnut again - Donuticus, it has been done to death before now that Henri Paul was NOT drunk - how much repetition of this fact does it take to get it into people's heads?

StarSparkle

Doubt over the blood alcohol tests does not mean he wasn't drunk, there isn't really any conclusive answer either way although the evidence does point toward the tests being correct. However, I do find the missing white Fiat for which there is evidence intriguing.

The most recent theory, which sounded more probable, was that Diana wasn't the intended target and that Dodi had got on the wrong side of some people he had some dodgy dealings with.

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 15:58

Doubt over the blood alcohol tests does not mean he wasn't drunk, there isn't really any conclusive answer either way although the evidence does point toward the tests being correct. However, I do find the missing white Fiat for which there is evidence intriguing.

The most recent theory, which sounded more probable, was that Diana wasn't the intended target and that Dodi had got on the wrong side of some people he had some dodgy dealings with.

That's the point though, Twiglet - the whole case is riddled with holes and questions - nothing about it seems to be straightforward or simple. There was strong doubt over the blood alcohol tests since very soon after the event, but the 'drunk-driver' explanation for the crash was allowed to become the official line. And we all know that once an official line has been put forward to the public, it's very hard to get that idea changed in the general public.

The white Fiat Uno is very interesting - I believe it was finally tracked down as belonging to a rather mysterious French reporter/photographer/paparazzi type who was rumoured to have links with security services. I can't remember his name off-hand, but can find out if needed. His body was found a number of years ago in a burnt-out car in very strange circumstances.

With the best will in the world, Twiglet, I cannot believe Henri Paul was the target. That sounds like an official smokescreen thrown up to try to deflect attention away from Diana. Henri Paul may well indeed have been in the pay of the French, or even British secret service, but there is no doubt in my mind that Diana was the target.

StarSparkle

Teabag

09-12-2006, 16:37

Twiglet

09-12-2006, 16:40

With the best will in the world, Twiglet, I cannot believe Henri Paul was the target. That sounds like an official smokescreen thrown up to try to deflect attention away from Diana. Henri Paul may well indeed have been in the pay of the French, or even British secret service, but there is no doubt in my mind that Diana was the target.

Sorry Starsparkle, if you read my post, the theory is about Dodi Fayed not Henri Paul :)

It was a very credible theory, with evidence that he was involved with Arab arms dealers, and that at the time of the crash they were travelling to a meeting with said dealers, which it is now thought may have been a 'staged' meeting, to make sure they went a specific route in the car.

Teabag

09-12-2006, 16:48

Twiglet

09-12-2006, 17:11

Grief does funny things to people

If you take the above seriously can I recommend the following site:

http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/

Grief? To who?

I'm not taking anything seriously I normally don't indulge in 'conspriacy' theories at all and find most of them ridiculous and even cruel. I don't fully believe any single 'theory' being bandied around by the press (in fact most of these are also ridiculous) as I prefer to deal in facts, but the simple fact about this case is that it just doesn't add up. I don't think the reality is anything like as sensational as it is being made out to be, and those in the car probably weren't even 'murdered', but we don't know exactly what happened that night and perhaps it is not our business to.

dylan_61

09-12-2006, 17:33

I don't think she was killed or even care for one second that she isn't alive any longer.

However the motive if one is needed is patently clear.

Prince Harry looks exactly like James Hewitt did at his age. If you've ever seen the two photographs side by side their facial structure, skin tone, hair colour and consistence are virtually the same. The similarities a far to great to avoid questioning whether James Hewitt, whom is known to have had a affair with Princess Diana is the biological father of Prince Harry.

James Hewitt also possesses several letters from Diana that he keeps locked in a vault which he describes as his 'pension' as he believes their value is so great he can live off their sale. It doesn't take a genius to make the connection between the similarities and what is contained within the letters.

Princess Diana has humiliated the Royal family by doing this, the third in line to the throne is a bast ard love child. She had also humiliated the whole nation.

We are far better off now that Charles has married Camilla and the succession of the head of state looks more stable. If the monarchy was destabilised it would lose support quickly and a referendum would soon ensue as the political parties, especially New Labour jumped on the bandwagon.

P.S I don’t agree with a royal family, but another tier of politicians vying for the position of President every four years is even less appealing.

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 19:05

Sorry Starsparkle, if you read my post, the theory is about Dodi Fayed not Henri Paul :)

It was a very credible theory, with evidence that he was involved with Arab arms dealers, and that at the time of the crash they were travelling to a meeting with said dealers, which it is now thought may have been a 'staged' meeting, to make sure they went a specific route in the car.

oops, sorry Twiglet, you are quite right - I should have read your post a bit more carefully....

But it doesn't change anything - I don't believe Dodi was the target either. If he had been, then there are surely much easier ways of doing away with him, than deliberately doing it in the full glare of in-depth and never-intending interest from the entire world's media.

And some of the things that happened that night - all the cameras around where the accident occurred just 'happened' to be out of order that night; the ambulance taking 2 hours or something to reach the hospital when it's highly possible Diana could have been saved if she'd reached specialist care sooner; the mix-ups at the morgue involving Henri Paul's blood samples; the unusual step of embalming of Diana's body which can affect the results of an autopsy;etc etc. There are other examples I could give. Let's face it, some degree of official sanction would be required to get away with those things, which would only have been forthcoming had Diana been the target.

StarSparkle

Halibut

09-12-2006, 19:12

Not this old chestnut again - Donuticus, it has been done to death before now that Henri Paul was NOT drunk - how much repetition of this fact does it take to get it into people's heads?

StarSparkle

The tests indicate original post-mortem samples, which showed Henri Paul was three times over the French drink-drive limit, were accurate and were his.

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 19:17

The tests indicate original post-mortem samples, which showed Henri Paul was three times over the French drink-drive limit, were accurate and were his.

The original post-mortem samples were believed to have been contaminated with samples from another body in the morgue that night, a man who HAD been drink driving.

As Henri Paul's body was conveniently cremated, against the express wishes of his parents, there was no way to obtain further, uncontaminated samples.

StarSparkle

artisan

09-12-2006, 19:52

The tests indicate original post-mortem samples, which showed Henri Paul was three times over the French drink-drive limit, were accurate and were his.
It has recently been proven, by using modern electro-spectography techniques, and analysing ancient texts, that the name "Halibut" is a direct translation of "Harry Opposite"
This is unlikely, however to be mentioned in the forthcoming report. :hihi:

Twiglet

09-12-2006, 20:11

the unusual step of embalming of Diana's body which can affect the results of an autopsy

Before I refute these things I will again state that I'm not blowing any entire theories out of the water just want to clear up a few facts.

When repatriating a body from on country to another, it is necessary to produce an embalming certificate. Thus it was absolutely normal practice for her body to have been embalmed after having undergone an autopsy in France, and to do otherwise would require a massive amount of red tape and has in fact proved impossible for the familes of people who have been murdered in other countries.

As Henri Paul's body was conveniently cremated, against the express wishes of his parents, there was no way to obtain further, uncontaminated samples.

Whilst it is true he was cremated and further samples cannot be taken, the samples in the lab which still exist have been thoroughly DNA tested several times over and proved to consist only of Henri Paul's blood.

StarSparkle

09-12-2006, 20:27

When repatriating a body from on country to another, it is necessary to produce an embalming certificate. Thus it was absolutely normal practice for her body to have been embalmed after having undergone an autopsy in France, and to do otherwise would require a massive amount of red tape and has in fact proved impossible for the familes of people who have been murdered in other countries.

I simply don't believe this would be the case for someone of Diana's importance. It was surely obvious to the French that the British authorities SHOULD want to carry out their own autopsy on her, especially with her death having occurred under such suspicious circumstances. In the event, the treatment given to the body by the French authorities made a British autopsy impossible.

StarSparkle

Halibut

09-12-2006, 20:51

It has recently been proven, by using modern electro-spectography techniques, and analysing ancient texts, that the name "Halibut" is a direct translation of "Harry Opposite"
This is unlikely, however to be mentioned in the forthcoming report. :hihi:

Ah, 'Confused ' of Hipperholme. 'tis you again. Touche, since also unlikely to be mentioned in the report is the

''In my opinion I am the greatest person on this planet, others are mere also rans.'' / ''The worst face that a person can put to the world is one of self angrandisment.'' (sic)

debacle, which according to the latest 'drunk drivers are extremely safe' technology reveals an outstanding inability to recognise the difference between elbow and rear end.