The Forum > General Discussion > Lady Di ' Unlawful Killing'
Lady Di ' Unlawful Killing'
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 9:21:54 AM
| |
sometimes you have to idiot proof our infrastructure
579, Yeah well, it's just that I'm getting simply too sick of it. If people reaally see a need to protect idiots then shouldn't those who produce idiots be responsible for them instead of us taxpayers all the time ? Why not fine those who hand certificates of merit to idiots ? As a matter of fact I think the idiot situation would make an interesting thread. Posted by individual, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 7:42:47 PM
| |
Idiot proof?
Every one of the deaths I speak about on the then Highway of Death [news paper gave it that name] Could have been avoided. Every single one. Condition of any road any part of any road never forced the driver to drive too fast for the conditions. Each poster here could start a conspiracy theory. A few will believe anything. But once more consider this, if every time such a conspiracy is aired it changes just maybe we should ask who is behind the lie and why. Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:37:56 AM
| |
WmTrevor the doco has been banned from being shown in public theatres.
If it was based on lies,the Royals would have sued Mohammad Fayed for producing it and he's worth at least a $ billion. So why haven't the Royals sued Fayed if it is a lie? They would have picked this doco to pieces to save their reputations, send Fayed broke plus make a fortune.Why are the Royals so silent? Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 7:16:15 PM
| |
Simple, Arjay.
>>Why are the Royals so silent?<< De minimis non curat rex. Or, in this case, regina. Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:17:19 PM
| |
"WmTrevor the doco has been banned from being shown in public theatres."
No, Arjay, that is why I extracted Keith Allen's own words. Here is the full paragraph: "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. Pity, because at a time when the mindless sugar rush of the royal wedding has been sending British Rrepublicans into a diabetic coma, it could act as a welcome antidote." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-see This is fun... "If it was based on lies,the Royals would have sued Mohammad Fayed for producing it and he's worth at least a $ billion. So why haven't the Royals sued Fayed if it is a lie?" If it was based on truths, Mohamed Al-Fayed would have sued the Royals and they're worth at least hundreds of $ billion. So why hasn't Al-Fayed sued the Royals if it is true? As you yourself have pointed out Mr. Al-Fayed is rich enough to afford the costs of bringing an action. Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 9 January 2014 8:27:31 AM
|
The link to access the evidence presented during the inquest,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090607230252/http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/evidence/list.htm#dec20
and the link to access the transcripts of proceedings,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090607230252/http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/index.htm
To help further, Paul Burrell's evidence regarding the undated, unletterheaded note is during the morning session of 14 January 2008.
Keith Allen should really have titled his film "Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes)".
By the way the film is not banned. Mr. Allen (who I thought played an excellent Sheriff of Nottingham in 'Robin Hood') refused to comply with "British lawyers [who] insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated."