It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prince Andrew named in Pedophile case....Royal Family becoming EXPOSED!!!

page: 31
71
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Diana letter predicts 'car plot'

Diana, Princess of Wales, wrote a letter to her former butler Paul Burrell 10 months before she died claiming there was a plot to tamper with the brakes of her car, it was reported today.
The princess said her life was at its "most dangerous" phase and that someone, whose name the Daily Mirror newspaper blacked out for legal reasons, was planning "an accident".
The letter said: "This particular phase in my life is the most (the word most is underlined) dangerous.
"(Word here blacked out) is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry."


www.dailymail.co.uk...




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
www.google.co.uk... %25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%25252Fnews%25252Fuknews%25252F1573170%25252FPrincess-Diana-letter-Charles-plans-to-kill-me.html&source=iu&pf= m&fir=t7P5E1RY-8vgMM%253A%252CHOe6ahdeBqq2eM%252C_&usg=__KlLYnz7ov3GQFy28vk-4O_RIK1c%3D&ved=0CEAQyjc&ei=mmK0VLfPEdHe7Aan74HoAw#imgdii=_&imgrc=t7P5E1RY -8vgMM%253A%3BHOe6ahdeBqq2eM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.telegraph.co.uk%252Fmultimedia%252Farchive%252F00654%252Fnews-graphics-2007-_654506a.jpg%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%252Fnews%252Fuknews%252F1573170%252FPrincess-Diana-letter-Charles-plans-to-kill-me.html%3B250%3B313

Link to actual images of the letter in question



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Hey Tangerine maybe he/she doesn't want to list the evidence details here because it could be deemed off topic and removed. That's why i just post links to articles or vids instead.


Also you must know that the previous poster meant to write Diana and that Diane was just a typo. Yet you still pick up on it as you did with me when i made a typo with andrew. You don't have to waste your time responding to this stuff

Ps the link works ok for me, try your browser settings?
edit on 12/1/2015 by daftpink because: typo. don't mock me for it now




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
www.google.co.uk... %25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%25252Fnews%25252Fuknews%25252F1573170%25252FPrincess-Diana-letter-Charles-plans-to-kill-me.html&source=iu&pf= m&fir=t7P5E1RY-8vgMM%253A%252CHOe6ahdeBqq2eM%252C_&usg=__KlLYnz7ov3GQFy28vk-4O_RIK1c%3D&ved=0CEAQyjc&ei=mmK0VLfPEdHe7Aan74HoAw#imgdii=_&imgrc=t7P5E1RY -8vgMM%253A%3BHOe6ahdeBqq2eM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.telegraph.co.uk%252Fmultimedia%252Farchive%252F00654%252Fnews-graphics-2007-_654506a.jpg%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%252Fnews%252Fuknews%252F1573170%252FPrincess-Diana-letter-Charles-plans-to-kill-me.html%3B250%3B313

Link to actual images of the letter in question


Thank you for posting this. OK, there is documentation of her claim. I accept that. Now, where is the actual evidence that the brakes failed? That Charles' ordered it to happen? That some specific person tampered with the brakes? That is how a case is put together.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: Tangerine

Hey Tangerine maybe he/she doesn't want to list the evidence details here because it could be deemed off topic and removed. That's why i just post links to articles or vids instead.


Also you must know that the previous poster meant to write Diana and that Diane was just a typo. Yet you still pick up on it as you did with me when i made a typo with andrew. You don't have to waste your time responding to this stuff

Ps the link works ok for me, try your browser settings?


And that's why I don't watch the videos you link.


When you misspell, as I occasionally do, expect to be corrected. By the way, I have heard people refer to her in speech as Diane rather than Diana. It's also common to refer to her as Princess Diana when that was not her proper title. She was Diana, Princess of Wales. The distinction is that only those born royal can put the title before their name. For example, it's Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. Not that you asked, but Camilla is technically Camilla, Princess of Wales although she is not "styled" that way and, instead uses another of her titles.
edit on 12-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine
Expect to be corrected? Why?
I don't need to be corrected. I see the error once I've posted I don't always feel the need to waste time correcting it when I know people know what I meant.

Also I have dyslexia. Deal with it.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

"And that's why I don't watch the videos you link."

Not sure what you mean here. You referenced my whole post so not sure which point constitutes your reasoning.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Thank you for posting this. OK, there is documentation of her claim. I accept that. Now, where is the actual evidence that the brakes failed? That Charles' ordered it to happen? That some specific person tampered with the brakes? That is how a case is put together.


As far as I am aware there was no suggestion in court of brake failure though Diane wrote of it ... What is true is there was "an accident" as Diane predicted see below

" The princess said her life was at its "most dangerous" phase and that someone, whose name the Daily Mirror newspaper blacked out for legal reasons, was planning "an accident".

This letter was withheld for many years before it saw the light of day

I am not a lawyer obviously ... But for me the circumstantial evidence points to murder ... This is my opinion and that of the majority of the British public old enough to remember that tragic day ...

The rescue crew found her seat belt to be faulty ... Eye witnesses saw her car being surrounded by motorcycles ( Not Paparazzi ) also a White Fiat Uno ... there were white paint traces on her car where it had been struck ... Also witnesses say there was a blinding flash which caused the car to run out of control ... there is so much more ... but this is going way off topic ... so I must end here by agreeing to disagree.

edit on 12-1-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
The rescue crew found her seat belt to be faulty ...


Care to show a valid source for that claim?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: artistpoet
The rescue crew found her seat belt to be faulty ...


Care to show a valid source for that claim?





Care to show a valid source for that claim?


With respect ... No not really ..
as I stated I will not stray off topic now

edit on 12-1-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: daftpink

I would also add Stockholm syndrome as something to think about. Victim can come and go as they please if they are mentally captured.


Stockholm Syndrome doesn't usually count in the cases of sex trafficking, because sex trafficking is the forced movement of victims, hence TRAFFIC, and since they are held against their will to be sold as SLAVES, those two words are fundamental to the definition.

SLAVE
TRAFFIC

Slaves are bought and sold, traffic means to move the slaves from place to place for the purpose of sex. No matter what other facets one wants to include, the term sex slave means a person is held physically and restrained physically for the purpose of sexual battery and assault.

Please take a look at people who have been sex slaves, then apply the definitions and you will see this lady mentioned by the OP does not qualify. While she might have Stockholm Syndrome, that means she must have been physically restrained against her will at some point, like hostages are, but since she gives no indication of what particular time she was physically restrained as a hostage, then I would have to doubt that as well.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Tangerine

Fact .. Evidence was withheld from the inquest ... A letter by Diane claiming her husband was going to have her murdered in a car accident ... but I will not waste my time with you


Her name was Diana not Diane. Where is the letter? Where is the proof that Charles had her killed?

What evidence was withheld from the inquest and by whom? Who ordered the evidence withheld?

I'm sure you won't be wasting your time with me because I'm not one of the people who confuses claims with actual evidence. Those who do are your target audience. Of course, I could be mistaken and you could produce the actual evidence. I guess we'll have to wait and see what your next post contains.


I wonder if they know that Dodi's father owns Herrod's of London? Dodi Fayyed was an Egyptian Muslim, so why is there no Brits on here making an issue of that?

And technically, Charles is British, he's just not English. Funny, the head of the Church of England isn't even English, how ironic is that? Diana was Lady Diana Spencer before she married, and if she never took his last name, then we could probably still call her Spencer. I don't know the laws regarding that, but at least she was English.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Tangerine




Thank you for posting this. OK, there is documentation of her claim. I accept that. Now, where is the actual evidence that the brakes failed? That Charles' ordered it to happen? That some specific person tampered with the brakes? That is how a case is put together.


As far as I am aware there was no suggestion in court of brake failure though Diane wrote of it ... What is true is there was "an accident" as Diane predicted see below

" The princess said her life was at its "most dangerous" phase and that someone, whose name the Daily Mirror newspaper blacked out for legal reasons, was planning "an accident".

This letter was withheld for many years before it saw the light of day

I am not a lawyer obviously ... But for me the circumstantial evidence points to murder ... This is my opinion and that of the majority of the British public old enough to remember that tragic day ...

The rescue crew found her seat belt to be faulty ... Eye witnesses saw her car being surrounded by motorcycles ( Not Paparazzi ) also a White Fiat Uno ... there were white paint traces on her car where it had been struck ... Also witnesses say there was a blinding flash which caused the car to run out of control ... there is so much more ... but this is going way off topic ... so I must end here by agreeing to disagree.


The blacked-out name was Charles as shown in other photos of the letter.

OK, in what legal document did the rescue crew found her seat belt to be faulty? Since when do rescue crews check seat belts, unless the belt wouldn't release so they could get her out of the vehicle in which case it might have been defective but that would not have contributed.

In what legal document did eyewitnesses comment about the motorcycles and white Fiat Uno?

In what legal document or photograph is the white paint scrape recorded?

I'm not doubting that these things have been said but were they said under oath in legal documents? And, if they were, they were leads to be investigated not a conclusion reached. Did Dodi Fayed's father, who is enormously wealthy, dig up conclusive evidence proving that Charles or another party ordered her death in this manner? Note that claims are not evidence. I'm well aware that all sorts of claims have been made. I'm unaware of any actual evidence proving those claims.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: artistpoet
The rescue crew found her seat belt to be faulty ...


Care to show a valid source for that claim?





Care to show a valid source for that claim?


With respect ... No not really ..
as I stated I will not stray off topic now


You had no problem bringing up this topic. Now you're claiming you won't provide a valid source for your claim? Here that sound? It's the flush of your credibility.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Funny, the head of the Church of England isn't even English, how ironic is that?


Yes she is, she was born in London, which is part of England....



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Thought people were just talking about slaves in general not trafficking.
x
edit on 13-1-2015 by and14263 because: Can't spell



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




You had no problem bringing up this topic. Now you're claiming you won't provide a valid source for your claim? Here that sound? It's the flush of your credibility.


This is not a court room where you are playing at defence lawyer of the accusation of murder
If it were you would have watched the documentary I posted but you did not

I could spend many years building a case ... to show how the Royal Courts are not impartial when it comes to accusations against the Royal Household ... but I believe you are not interested and I would be wasting my valuable time and energy
because you are not impartial

I already stated that I thought this discussion between you and I was straying off topic and agreed to disagree
However you persist and make it personal by trying to discredit me without even knowing me

This is not a court room ... If you can not be bothered to watch the documentary fine by me





edit on 13-1-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


Please take a look at people who have been sex slaves, then apply the definitions and you will see this lady mentioned by the OP does not qualify.


What definitions? The ones previously supplied by me that have already proved you wrong. Or the definitions i have been asking you to supply, the ones you keep referring to but dont seem to exist.

Can you supply these definitions you keep referring to please because at the moment you seem to be making these definitions up to suit your argument.


edit on 13/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


sex trafficking is the forced movement of victims, hence TRAFFIC, and since they are held against their will to be sold as SLAVES, those two words are fundamental to the definition.


Its not you know.


since she gives no indication of what particular time she was physically restrained as a hostage, then I would have to doubt that as well.


A hostage????


Here is the definition of trafficking. Its the actual lawfull definition used in UK and international law. Its defined as part of the Palmero Protocols.



"Trafficking in persons shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or removal of organs."


Also, take a look at the actual legislation...

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Section 59A: Trafficking a person for sexual exploitation.

As you can see, holding a person against their will is not an element that is required for this offence.

A prostitute can be trafficked and a prostitute can be a sex slave, its nothing to do with holding someone against their will. Granted, in some cases people are held against their will, but that's not what you are saying. What you are saying is that to be a sex slave requires a person to be physically held against their will (kidnap) and as she was not held against her will then she could not have been a sex slave.

So, at the moment we have the definition i supplied from antislavery.org, the lawfull definition from the UN (Palmero Protocols) and the actual law vs your definition.

Can you supply a source please so we can test your definition.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


You had no problem bringing up this topic. Now you're claiming you won't provide a valid source for your claim? Here that sound? It's the flush of your credibility.


Credibility? Im still waiting for you to supply evidence to back up your statements made earlier in this thread. Ive asked repeatedly but you have still ignored them.

It was interesting to see your first post in this thread was followed by comments something like "Oh here he is, king of trolls" or something like that.

When you look back at your posts, and not just on this thread, you start to notice the majority of them bring no educational value at all. They are just comments such as "show me the evidence", "Back that up with evidence", etc.

Now that's fine, its good to challenge everything; however, when its done on the scale that you do it, it does start to look a bit dodgy.

From looking at your posting history, you don't seem to hold any true convictions about the subjects being discussed, whatever the thread. All that you do is make sure that you take on the roll of debunker in a thread, make repeated requests for 'testable evidence' and then when that evidence is supplied, either make requests for evidence about the evidence or, if the evidence is solid, go onto then ignore it.

Dont get me wrong i dont have an issue with debunkers, there are some good ones here on ATS but their debunking also brings some educational value with it, this is usually because the debunker is discussing something they have a passion or conviction for. You don't do this though, you just repeatedly call people out and make demands for evidence; however, when challenged yourself you will quite often hide behind, and openly state the pseudologic 'you cant prove a negative'.

Mate, your belief that you cant prove a negative is not true, and its floored; have a ponder over this....

Right, im asking you to prove to me that you cant prove a negative; ie, your statement is true!

The statement ‘you cant prove a negative’ is actually a negative also; so, the very act of you proving it true as per my request, would mean that its not true! See, you would be proving a negative!

Contrary to what you stated previous, you dont annoy me (well perhaps a bit, lol) but your actions do concern me, simply because of the fact they bring nothing to the table regarding educational value. Obviously I can only speak for myself but im here to learn. I expect to be told im wrong and challenged along the way, it is ATS after all. But i also expect not just to be told im wrong, but why i am wrong and posts like "evidence please!" etc dont really do that do they?

I see ATS as a place where we all exchange opinions, not where a person comes to share a view just to be blatantly contradicted.


edit on 13/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)

edit on 13/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join