What Was MI6 Team Doing In Paris The Night Princess Diana Died?

page: 14
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


A quote from the director.

Why is the film being premiered next week at Cannes, three years after the inquest ended? Because British lawyers insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated. So rather than butcher the film, or risk legal action, we're showing it in France, then the US, and everywhere except the UK.

Like I said they didn't release it here because they would have been sued.
edit on 4-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Like I said they didn't release it here because they would have been sued.


So it was not banned, they realise as it was full of crap they would be sued, so did not release it in the UK!



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Yup.
2nd.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Yes, bump, right.
He's cracking me up, but that's better than getting angry at him, we all show what we are through our posts here, I won't say any more about that.

It's interesting that the guy in that video started writing a book about an accident, but because of the evidence it turned into a book about a murder.

I'd like to know if they two princes ever got to see the documentary, or if they were like some here who just won't watch it but feel they are qualified to pass comment on it. I'm sure the two princes won't be allowed to watch it but with today's technology there's no way to stop them if they want to. They must want to know the truth, I know I would.

I had to stop watching the news because of the Jimmy SoVILE thing, I can't handle stuff involving kids like that, I have my reasons but can't talk about it. So I'm missing what's happening with the no 10 thing. Thanks for the name change there, I already had the VILE part but didn't think to change the a to an o.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


A documentary is compiled of documentary evidence. I'm still wanting to see the list of cuts the UK demanded.
Would you want your hard work butchered? Would you want to be sued?
NO!
So, why are you condemning the film maker for protecting his work and getting his voice out there in the best and only way possible?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


If he really believed it he would have shown it in the UK.
If he really stood by his work he would risk the law suits (he has MAF backing him).



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
If he really believed it he would have shown it in the UK.
If he really stood by his work he would risk the law suits (he has MAF backing him).


He didnt stand by his work, thus he never released it in the UK!

But some people refuse to Deny Ignorance and claim it is banned in the UK.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Afterthought
 


If he really believed it he would have shown it in the UK.
If he really stood by his work he would risk the law suits (he has MAF backing him).


Give me a break! Where would he have shown it in the UK?
Would he have used a projector with a really long extension cord to show it on the side of a building?

By the way, are you a resident of the UK?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Yes Iam, and you are right maybe every cinema etc would have thought not showing this, we would get sued to death.
Think about the reasons he would have been sued..no real evidence to his claims.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


If you haven't watched the documentary, you cannot comment.
"Unlawful Killing" was only focused on evidence that was verifiable.
Please stop hedging and just watch the film.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


In the introduction she said "it's not allowed to be shown in the UK" Fine, I get it, you don't understand that not allowed is the same as banned.


ETA. I'm in the UK and it's past 4am, I'm off to bed. Good luck Afterthought and good night.
edit on 4-1-2013 by LEL01 because: Saying good night.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LEL01
In the introduction she said "it's not allowed to be shown in the UK" Fine, I get it, you don't understand that not allowed is the same as banned.


What is the name of the person who said that.... remember, the UK did not ban it.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Afterthought
 


If he really believed it he would have shown it in the UK.
If he really stood by his work he would risk the law suits (he has MAF backing him).


Mohamed al Fayad paid for the documentary and the director was the hired help. It was the director's duty to collect all the information at hand and to make the case and the project was completed. It is very late in the day to suddenly say that he does not stand by the work. Mohamed al Fayad was determined to attack the royal family and wanted to use the documentary.

Neither al Fayad or the director are now prepared to deploy the documentary. It seems to me that they have been silenced by hidden hands.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
Mohamed Fayad was determined to attack the royal family and wanted to use the documentary.


Thus he was not interested in the truth, he just wanted it to attack them


Neither Fayad or the director are now prepared to deploy the documentary. It seems to me that they have been silenced by hidden hands.


No,they realise as there were so many lies in it their own lawyer told them they would have to make 87 changes before it was broadcast on tv...
www.totalfilm.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
mercenary force - uhh - gee - paid to follow orders.
dead not shaken.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 





Thus he was not interested in the truth, he just wanted it to attack them


An illogical statement that is based on an assumption. Merely having an intent to get at the royals does not presuppose a disinterest in the truth.




No,they realise as there were so many lies in it their own lawyer told them they would have to make 87 changes before it was broadcast on tv...


You cited totalfilm.com as a source, a site dedicated to entertainment gossip.

Keith Allen refused to edit the film on the instruction of the lawyers of the insurance company of the production. You appear to have purely subjective understanding of the facts.
edit on 5-1-2013 by DoorKnobEddie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I have just watched that “unlawful killing” documentary everyone is harping on about, it does raise some interesting points but it does not prove that SIS killed Diana on the orders of the Royal Family.

I did find the predictions Diana made before her death about how she would die and how police officers covered this up is interesting however this is not new information. It has been reported in the press, anyone who actually reads the Daily Express or the Daily Mail can tell you that the ideas about the press turning a blind eye is wrong.

For the most part this documentary contains biographical details about the Fayed’s and the Winsor family which is fair enough but again nothing to prove they killed Diana. Further than this the vast majority of this video is just bad mouthing the Royal family, now I do agree with some points made against the Royal Family but I also disagree with many of them. Regardless of this, by bad mouthing the Royal family and pointing out how “evil” they are does not prove that they were complacent in the death of Diana. At times this anti-Royal stance the documentary takes is downright offensive, I am really sickened that they contacted Diana’s kids to comment on this.

I do have a number of other points of contention, for example there is nothing that proves the Royal Family or SIS had motive enough to justify assassinating Diana. The main claim made in the documentary regards land mines, in December of 1997 Brittan signed the Ottawa treaty banning anti-personnel mines so I fail to see how this is any kind of motivation.

I burst out laughing at Peirce Morgan talking about SIS and basing his information on James Bond movies. There is not any prove that SIS where involved in this other than what Richard Tomlinson has to say, I have read his book, he has quite a lot of gripes with British intelligence. They sacked him, he tried to sue for unfair dismissal when he was unsuccessful he then broke the official secrets act so he was sent to prison. He does not like British intelligence and does everything he can do to discredit them. To be clear SIS did really have a plan to use strobe lights in an assassination but it does not mean that thy done the same to Diana, also this was a plan that was developed by the SBS for the increment if my memory serves.

The conspiracy outlined tries to show that British, French and American intelligence where involved. First of all, the idea of SIS and DGSE working to gather on this is a bit of a stretch the two groups historically don’t work well together. On the American side the bias of their involvement is form the NSA intercepts, most likely these intercepts where done at the request of GCHQ under the ECHELON program, that is to say it was the British who requested the intercepts that the intelligence product was intended for them. Again many high profile figures have had this happen to them in the past, it’s not surprising that they would keep tabs on Diana nor is it proof that they wanted her dead.

The documentary also asks why it took over an hour for her to get to the hospital. I have some incite to this as a young student nurse I spent some time working in A&E part of which involved a day out with an ambulance crew. It is not uncommon for it to take over an hour even longer than that to get somebody out of a car, furthermore based on my own reading on this Diana had a cardiac arrest at the scene. Just because she was conscious after the crash does not mean that her eventual death is unusual, it happens quite a lot she had massive internal injuries and would have been hypovolemic.

Overall this documentary is massively bias to the conspiracy side of things based on a grieving father who funded the documentary. There are multiple errors for example when discussing the verdict of the Jury, yes they ruled unlawful killing but it was unlawful killing by the negligent driving of Henri Paul and the perusing vehicles. There are a number of other inaccuracies for example the paparazzi where present at the scene, some of them where even arrested.

There are so many issues with this documentary I could go on all day listing its flaws but fundamentally it does not prove that SIS under the direction of Prince Philip.
edit on 5-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 


To get back on topic please explain what you think the significance of 3 SIS officers being in Paris that night.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


If you are going to say they assassinated her because she loved a Muslim then as I have explained in the above quote that point does not stand up to scrutiny


Because of Prince Philip and HRH's deep love for Muslims, obviously...not to mention dodgy ones from Egypt, with no Royal connections or good breeding.




The rest of your post is more about Fayed than it is about Diana, if they were really worried about him they could have just assassinated Dodi.


Why? He wasn't the problem, Diana was. She was going out of her way to piss the Royals off and this was merely the latest in a long list of things she did to stick it to them. Evidently, it was the last straw that broke the camel's back




Also by distant relatives I was talking about the possible future offspring of any step-brother/sister to the future King and his offspring


Well again, not that distant; nephews and nieces? I'd say that's pretty damn close...too close for comfort as far as the RF are concerned. You're very naif if you don't believe Diana's love child to Dodi (or to anyone who doesn't pass muster) wouldn't have caused major headaches for the RF and the establishment.




I am yet to see a reasonable reason for assassinating Diana, there is no motive.


Diana was a thorn in the side of the RF and, in the end, they'd had enough and wanted rid.
But in order to know that you would need to be informed on the subject, ie read some books on her life, maybe watched the occasional documentary.
edit on 5-1-2013 by CJCrawley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


The documentary people keep harping on about I watched, it proved nothing

The issue of motivation keeps being brought up and nobody can actually say “this is why the assassinated her” there was absolutely no reason to have her assassinated.

I mean if you are going to say they were a “thorn in the side of the RF” and that is why they assassinated her, then why have they not bumped off Tim Allen and Dodi’s old man. Why just Diana, she was no threat to them, she was not about to bring down the monarch so it’s not a valid reason.

A valid reason would include something like “she have proof that Prince Charles was not the son of the Queen or that he was Gay, abused kids, was a Russian spy” you know something like that might get you killed saying “I don’t like the royal family” is not reason enough to have someone killed.





top topics
 
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join