Thursday, December 14, 2006

Diana Whitewash

When the establishment investigates itself, the result is predictable. In that respect the 832 pages plus appendices of Lord Stevens' report into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, are hardly worth examining or discussing more closely. Does anyone seriously believe that when interviewed, MI6 officers would have come clean if they had any non-benign involvement in the matter?

Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learned. The greatest and saddest lesson is that for Harrod's owner El-Fayed and Anglophiles like him who always wanted to be part of the British establishment. He should have known better before sacrificing everything in an unattainable quest: The British establishment is a closed shop not open to Muslims, however secular they might be in their demeanour.

Another lesson should be for those trying to expose the corruption and malpractice within the establishment not to waste their time calling for enquiries, whether it be into the way Charles de Menezes was brutally executed by police in a London tube train or into the numerous inconsistencies of the official story around the July 7 bombings in London. As the enquiry into the death of David Kelly and that into the death of Lady Diana prove, they are designed to exonerate the establishment at any cost. They are not the forum for finding the truth. The report explains the absence of camera pictures of the princess' last journey by saying that in Paris in 1997 there were not as many CCTV cameras as there are today in London driven by anti-terrorism measures. I'm sure if Lord Stevens was asked to investigate the July 7 bombings, he would find some other reason why none of these many cameras recorded the alleged suicide bombers last journey.

On the other hand, it seems that the establishment itself has not learned many lessons either. The late Robert Maxwell is said to have opined before his mysterious death and the revelation about his pension fund swindle that for a lie to succeed it has to have an element of truth in it. Now this is where Lord Stevens' investigation falls down like so many others before him. In their arrogance and stupidity the British establishment will not even concede the slightest irregularities.

By ticking the "not to blame" tick box for each and every allegation made against anybody even remotely connected with the establishment and ticking the "not true" box for even the slightest accusation of something not being quite right the report loses all its credibility. Just as there is no perfect crime, there is also no perfect accident where everything from the moment "go" is done right by everybody. By refusing to question some of the actions, like the immediate embalming of the body of the princess, or the unacceptable delays in obtaining suitable medical attention for her when she had clearly survived the crash, the author(s) of the report destroy any credibility it might have had with a critical observer not yet totally brainwashed and bereft of any ability to think independently.

And there is another own goal right at the end of the report where it asserts that MI6 did not know that the Princess of Wales was in Paris the night of her tragic death. However, they did know about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Given their knowledge is so patchy, they should be closed down rather than have their funding increased.


At 14 December 2006 at 20:15, Blogger Unknown said...

I'm certainly not condoning the behavior of the British Government...however, give me one single government on the face of the earth that doesn't exonerate itself at all costs..and I'll grab up my passport and hop the first plane there.

At 14 December 2006 at 21:57, Blogger Mustaqim said...

You sure got a point there - I'm still looking myself!

At 15 December 2006 at 01:19, Blogger redtown said...

Bottom line: a drunk driver was driving 60-90 mph in a 30 mph zone and crashed into a barrier. End of discussion. No assassin on a grassy knoll, no Prince Philip hit squad, no alien abductions.

The late Quentin Crisp spoke truthfully, if bluntly, that Princess Diana's fast and shallow lifestyle contributed to her own demise: "She could have been Queen of England -- and she was swanning about Paris.... What disgraceful behavior. Going about saying she wanted to be the queen of hearts. The vulgarity of it is so overpowering." (Atlanta Southern Voice, 1 July 1999).

Or to put it more kindly, both Diana and her brother, Charles Spencer, probably suffered from borderline personality disorder (BPD), rooted in their mother's abandonment of them when they were young children. For Charles Spencer, BPD expressed itself as insatiable sexual promiscuity (his wife was divorcing him at the time of Diana's death). For Diana, BPD expressed itself as intense insecurity and an insatiable need for attention and affection (which even the best husband could never have fulfilled). These sowed the seeds of her fast lifestyle and her tragic fate.

At 22 December 2006 at 18:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Another lesson should be for those trying to expose the corruption and malpractice within the establishment not to waste their time calling for enquiries"

After 4 years trying to expose the truth about the Dunblane massacre, I have come to exactly the same conclusion. For more info, go to:

At 25 December 2006 at 16:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet another wake up call to the secret underground murderous activities of british agencies and the whiter than white parasetic royal family.

At 31 December 2006 at 19:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Until there are enquires of the enquires done by someone with a pair of balls not a thing will change or be known.
MI6? more like MFI if they claim they didn't know that the princess was in Paris.
Maybe we should hire the paparazzi as our intelligence agency.
If it was a genuine accident then as much as can be done has been done to discredit it other than through the eyes of a total fool.
If it was that much of an accident you'd think no stone would be left unturned and every possible line and angle would be looked at thoroughly. The car for instance every nut and bolt checked for any signs of sabotage even if the driver was 'drunk.' I don't subscribe to that train of thought I'm afraid.
Cannot even fathom how she could have brought this on herself as someone has commented above or either that her behaviour was disgraceful. This woman was outspoken considering her position and championed many causes. She had bigger balls than anyone in office and all the male element of the royals.


Post a Comment

<< Home