Controversial Princess Diana film Banned in US & UK

An interesting thing about slander or libel in the USA is that the accuser doesn't have to prove what he says is true, the accused must prove that what the accuser says is not true.

Maybe that's why cheney and bush or any other politician hasn't sued anyone for slander, because they could never prove it isn't true. The ones behind Dianna's death, if it was nefarious, wouldn't win a slander case either, because they would be trying to prove that lies were the truth, which can be hard to do..

Mohamed Al Fayed is a friggin nutjob. His son died because he was courting a media whore.

Originally posted by HamrHeed
Diana was a timeless beauty and the epitome of elegant

RIP

edit on 6-7-2012 by HamrHeed because: rip

Yeah, course she was.
And well practiced in the mirror with that Bambi's mum just got shot look.
Give me a break.

reply to post by defcon5


Which the british monarchy has due to its narco trade links.

Originally posted by Suspiria
Mohamed Al Fayed is a friggin nutjob. His son died because he was courting a media whore.

I find your "statement" very ofensive, I have no love for Mohamed, But he is just a grieving father still in denial off his sons suspicious death, Any parent will go the full lengh to keep the investigation going, After all he has a far superior network off people in the know to carry on investigateing compared to the likes off me and you..

As for Diana, She is still an iconic person to alot off people around the world.

Your comment lacks any empathy and compassion to most caring people..

reply to post by Suspiria

Yes, some are jealous of beauty and privilege.

Diana had class, something sadly lacking in the world today.

reply to post by Suspiria

Yes, jealous.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Unity_99

 

How can it be legal to censor or ban information?

It isn't information. The film contains actionable claims against various people, and opens the makers to the threat of multiple lawsuits. Clearly the claims are not supported by any proof that will stand up in court.

That doesn't mean the claims are false. Read the Guardian article I posted, in which Keith Allen himself clearly explains the nature of the accusations being made in the film. You will see that it covers a very grey area – whether or not establishment figures spontaneously participated in a cover-up, without being asked, ordered or told to. There is no way you can prove a thing like that in court.

Nothing is being censored. It was the producers' own choice (made under legal advisement) not to run the film and risk being sued.

edit on 6/7/12 by Astyanax because: of legal issues.

No video, or film has to contain claims that will provide evidence.

Instead they can contain suspicion by many people that something was not as the official story is, we are FREE TO ASSESS ANYTHING WE WISH.

We can speculate in any media we please, we are FREE.

Many believe she was murdered.

Originally posted by Suspiria
Mohamed Al Fayed is a friggin nutjob. His son died because he was courting a media whore.

That was a fairly simplistic answer. How about poking around some instead?
Start here:

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Unity_99

 

How can it be legal to censor or ban information?

It isn't information. The film contains actionable claims against various people, and opens the makers to the threat of multiple lawsuits. Clearly the claims are not supported by any proof that will stand up in court.

That doesn't mean the claims are false. Read the Guardian article I posted, in which Keith Allen himself clearly explains the nature of the accusations being made in the film. You will see that it covers a very grey area – whether or not establishment figures spontaneously participated in a cover-up, without being asked, ordered or told to. There is no way you can prove a thing like that in court.

Nothing is being censored. It was the producers' own choice (made under legal advisement) not to run the film and risk being sued.

edit on 6/7/12 by Astyanax because: of legal issues.

That's rubbish tbh because there are a lot Princess Dianna documentries that actually blame and name names but they are not banned.

This documentary has hit a sore spot much more than the others.

makes you wonder how mr david icke gets away with his claims about the queen & her family .never had a book withdrawn or done in i find that strange very strange

Originally posted by Infi8nity
So how and WHY is it banned hear in the US? We are not the U.K (EU) how can they tell us what we can watch unless....

You put the pieces together

edit on 6-7-2012 by Infi8nity because: (no reason given)

America is a subsidiary of the U.K. we are owned by the Queen as is Canada and Australia. BAR..=..British Accredited Registry. ALL lawyers, politicians and lobbyists are members of the "British Registry", we are owned.

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
I dunno what are they covering up?

Had little to no interest in this before but now lets see it!

"A controversial documentary delving into the details of Princess Diana's death will not see the light of day in the United States or Britain.

The film, "Unlawful Killing," directed by Keith Allen, claims the princess and her boyfriend, Dodi Al Fayed, were murdered in a plot involving her former father-in-law, Prince Philip. The movie was financed by Dodi Al Fayed's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, who has always believed the deaths were suspicious and not an accident."

news.yahoo.com...

OP thanks for this, I had signed up with Amazon US to be notified upon release... Now that obviously ain't gonna happen.... Gutted.....

WTF is the problem with releasing this film? I don't get it.... Unless there IS something to hide.

You'll have to use your finger to read the rest.

I was compelled to comment because of your tone in the post referenced by the quote above. You offer a link as clarification of why the film was not being shown in the USA, as that was the question you were responding to, yet this link you provided stated absolutely NOTHING regarding the fact that the film will not be released in the US. It stated why it won't be released in Britain. So apparently you should take your time to read more thoroughly. I too am curious as to why this wasn't released in the USA.

NEVER FEAR!

It's on youtube! So you can watch it whenever you want to.

And if you have a youtube downloader, you can download it without having to worry about being online to watch it!

You can find a free youtube downloader on CNET.

reply to post by BABYBULL24


If my wife died one year after our divorce The cops would have had me under a microscope immediately. Innocent or not they would determine that for themselves. Not so for the royals and family. They killed her and Doti too.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Give us a link stud ! Please ?

reply to post by randyvs


All you have to do is go to you tube and type in Unlawful Killing.

You tube is really easy to find.

www.youtube.com... 1.2.2.0.626.1637.1j1j2j1j0j1.6.0...0.0.s46FrirVUPM

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Thanks for the link. I always figured there was more to the crash than just an accident. Going to have to watch this tonight.

White, damaged Fiat Uno never found? A coroner who always insisted that it was nothing more than an accident, blaming same unknown Uno and paparazzi as the cause, while the paparazzi actually were playing catchup. Why not a white Fiat Uno belonging to a paparazzi? It seems sure that a collision occured between the Mercedes and a white Uno, and that is the key to everything, but not necessarily from the coroner's point of view. There is no chance in hell of that Uno ever being found now. Conversely, even a good handling car like the Uno would be no match for a big Mercedes, crappy as that particular Mercedes was, an Uno would not be able to deflect the Mercedes given where the contact emphasis was said to have occurred at or near the rear of the Uno. What is true, is that the whole scenario is now in the catagory of 'Not to touch with a barge pole' as far as media is concerned. We are supposed to move on.