The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To be honest after about 2 days of it I started ignoring that whole David Kelly, story as quite frankly it got boring. The same situation is so blatantly going to happen with this whole Diana situation, It is moronic to say the least to want to open an inquest for the following reasons:
A. She has been dead 6 years, there has been a French inquest, they either found nothing or were told not to find anything, either way the results of the Brit inquest would be the same as the same people have had 6 years to cover up what they want.
B. If, and it is a huge IF, she was murdered they aren't gonna be able to prove it, The people who would have done it would be thorough professionals who will have covered it up perfectly and will have the right contacts to make sure the truth would not come out.
C. If by some absolute miracle somebody actually proved she was murdered whats going to happen? Firstly you would damage, one of the best intelligence agencies in the world with a mass culling of security heads, who were likely just to have been following higher orders, and by removing our best men damage our national security. Or More likely we will have a David Kelly style "blame sombody in the middle ranks whose expendable policy" in which some one who is probably fairly innocent will be sacrificed to the media, and will end up topping themselves, due to the constant hounding from the "i love Diana brigade".
No good can ever come from this, and it is purely speculation at best, some things are better left alone and this is definitely one of them because even if she was murdered those responsible would never face justice it can only lead to a negative impact on the country, but, oh no, if the Daily mail Can damage our Intelligence agencies then all will be well. Then who will catch their hated paedophiles, stop the terrorists or restrict weapons flows into the UK, Nevermind we'll just report on Saint Diana and then moan when Fleet Street gets blown up. Let it rest.
A. She has been dead 6 years, there has been a French inquest, they either found nothing or were told not to find anything, either way the results of the Brit inquest would be the same as the same people have had 6 years to cover up what they want.
B. If, and it is a huge IF, she was murdered they aren't gonna be able to prove it, The people who would have done it would be thorough professionals who will have covered it up perfectly and will have the right contacts to make sure the truth would not come out.
C. If by some absolute miracle somebody actually proved she was murdered whats going to happen? Firstly you would damage, one of the best intelligence agencies in the world with a mass culling of security heads, who were likely just to have been following higher orders, and by removing our best men damage our national security. Or More likely we will have a David Kelly style "blame sombody in the middle ranks whose expendable policy" in which some one who is probably fairly innocent will be sacrificed to the media, and will end up topping themselves, due to the constant hounding from the "i love Diana brigade".
No good can ever come from this, and it is purely speculation at best, some things are better left alone and this is definitely one of them because even if she was murdered those responsible would never face justice it can only lead to a negative impact on the country, but, oh no, if the Daily mail Can damage our Intelligence agencies then all will be well. Then who will catch their hated paedophiles, stop the terrorists or restrict weapons flows into the UK, Nevermind we'll just report on Saint Diana and then moan when Fleet Street gets blown up. Let it rest.
Page:
I'm surprised, and sorry, that my comments annoyed you. They were not meant to annoy anyone they are just my opinion. They may be simplified and they may be not fully informed but they are mine.
I do not believe that after all this time another inquest would turn up something to satisfy the demands of the people who are screaming for an inquest, hence my comments regarding a waste of time and money. However my opinion will have absolutely no effect on whether we get a British one or not.
The lastest twist in this saga is 'the letter' which he has held onto for six years and only now brings it into the light. He also wants to meet with Harry and William face to face to tell them why he wrote the book. He also wants them to read it so that they know it is a tribute to their mother. Oh goody, just what they need. Of course the fact that he will make a lot of money from this (unless he's donating everything to one of her charities, which I haven't hear about) has absolutely nothing to do with it. He, of course, is so magnamonious (sp) that he holds no grudges for being taken to court last year.
What is going to be revealed when this latest titbit has run it's course and dried up?
I'm just cynical and sick to death of hearing about it all so I posted what I felt that's all.
I do not believe that after all this time another inquest would turn up something to satisfy the demands of the people who are screaming for an inquest, hence my comments regarding a waste of time and money. However my opinion will have absolutely no effect on whether we get a British one or not.
The lastest twist in this saga is 'the letter' which he has held onto for six years and only now brings it into the light. He also wants to meet with Harry and William face to face to tell them why he wrote the book. He also wants them to read it so that they know it is a tribute to their mother. Oh goody, just what they need. Of course the fact that he will make a lot of money from this (unless he's donating everything to one of her charities, which I haven't hear about) has absolutely nothing to do with it. He, of course, is so magnamonious (sp) that he holds no grudges for being taken to court last year.
What is going to be revealed when this latest titbit has run it's course and dried up?
I'm just cynical and sick to death of hearing about it all so I posted what I felt that's all.
Yep, sorry, I did misread, it's been one of those days when I really wished I hadn't bothered leaving the house, which is little excuse but there it is.
What annoyed me most about Ineedsleep's comments was:
"There should be no further inquests into the death of Diana. It would be a waste of time and money and would not discover anything new"
1)There has been one botched inquest, in France
2)How the F do we know what it would discover if it has not occurred ?
For starters it'd tell us how a supposedly drunk driver's blood became devoid of alcohol in Guiness Book Of Records record breaking time. And the seatbelts things is the most ludicrous thing of all...if they knew the paparazzi would be following them then the first thing any bodyguard is going to do is ensure his protectee is secure. And it's not like the driver would be any amateur, he'd have done numerous escape and evasion drills, as well as shaking tails, let alone a bunch of journalists.
What annoyed me most about Ineedsleep's comments was:
"There should be no further inquests into the death of Diana. It would be a waste of time and money and would not discover anything new"
1)There has been one botched inquest, in France
2)How the F do we know what it would discover if it has not occurred ?
For starters it'd tell us how a supposedly drunk driver's blood became devoid of alcohol in Guiness Book Of Records record breaking time. And the seatbelts things is the most ludicrous thing of all...if they knew the paparazzi would be following them then the first thing any bodyguard is going to do is ensure his protectee is secure. And it's not like the driver would be any amateur, he'd have done numerous escape and evasion drills, as well as shaking tails, let alone a bunch of journalists.
Belldandy wrote:
> So you were complaining that I had said Ineedsleep had oversimlified
> it, when in fact you agree the issue is not simple ? Ooooookay.#
Erm...no Bell. Listen VERY closely...
- You said Ineedsleep oversimplified an issue.
- I said that you saying that is funny, because you ALWAYS oversimplify issues
- I didn't, at any point, make any comment about Ineedsleep's post or about the actual issue itself.
- I did, in no uncertain terms, make fun of you and, by implication, the fact that you always miss the point yourself by oversimplification (as you have done in this very exchange) as well as your lack of self awareness (in that you, the person who oversimplifies more than any other person who posts here, criticising someone for oversimplification shows a lack of self-awareness).
Can I make that any clearer? I was NOT complaining about you. I was making fun of you. Making a joke at your expense. Having a laugh. And doing all of this based on the fact that you yourself...oversimplify things in most of your posts.
Really, I'm sure thats fairly clear isn't it?
> So you were complaining that I had said Ineedsleep had oversimlified
> it, when in fact you agree the issue is not simple ? Ooooookay.#
Erm...no Bell. Listen VERY closely...
- You said Ineedsleep oversimplified an issue.
- I said that you saying that is funny, because you ALWAYS oversimplify issues
- I didn't, at any point, make any comment about Ineedsleep's post or about the actual issue itself.
- I did, in no uncertain terms, make fun of you and, by implication, the fact that you always miss the point yourself by oversimplification (as you have done in this very exchange) as well as your lack of self awareness (in that you, the person who oversimplifies more than any other person who posts here, criticising someone for oversimplification shows a lack of self-awareness).
Can I make that any clearer? I was NOT complaining about you. I was making fun of you. Making a joke at your expense. Having a laugh. And doing all of this based on the fact that you yourself...oversimplify things in most of your posts.
Really, I'm sure thats fairly clear isn't it?
So you were complaining that I had said Ineedsleep had oversimlified it, when in fact you agree the issue is not simple ? Ooooookay.
Hmmm....
Light says Belldandy criticising someone else for oversimplifying something is very funny because Belldandy oversimplifies everything, and usually misses the point whilst doing so.
Belldandy says "Are you saying this is a simple issue?", thus missing the point of what I said.
~scratches head~
Nope, can't see how you came out with that statement at all. I'm at something of a loss as to how you can take my criticism of your double standard as anything other than...well, a criticism of you personally.
For the record; no, I'm not saying it's simple. I'm not, in fact, saying anything about the Diana thing. I don't know enough about it, and in truth nor do I care hugely. About all I'd feel qualified to say is that if there is any doubt over the events leading to her death, then an inquest would be a good opportunity to address them.
Light says Belldandy criticising someone else for oversimplifying something is very funny because Belldandy oversimplifies everything, and usually misses the point whilst doing so.
Belldandy says "Are you saying this is a simple issue?", thus missing the point of what I said.
~scratches head~
Nope, can't see how you came out with that statement at all. I'm at something of a loss as to how you can take my criticism of your double standard as anything other than...well, a criticism of you personally.
For the record; no, I'm not saying it's simple. I'm not, in fact, saying anything about the Diana thing. I don't know enough about it, and in truth nor do I care hugely. About all I'd feel qualified to say is that if there is any doubt over the events leading to her death, then an inquest would be a good opportunity to address them.
What I find amazing over all this, is that whilst the "public" often demands to know everything about government, they seem happy to be manipulated, lied to, by the Royal Family, and support the Royal's supposed priviliege to tell people to shut up about them.
Did Burrel sign anything legally binding saying he would not talk ? Nope. And if what he's saying is, as the Royal Family would have people believe, so wrong, then how come they're giving it so much attention ?
And Light, are you saying this is simple ?
Did Burrel sign anything legally binding saying he would not talk ? Nope. And if what he's saying is, as the Royal Family would have people believe, so wrong, then how come they're giving it so much attention ?
And Light, are you saying this is simple ?
Gosh, there are complexities? Sorry didn't realise that.
Belldandy wrote:
> Oh dear someone doesn't quite seem to have grasped the complexities of
> this...
~points and laughs~
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!
Mr Pot, would be be so good as to introduce yourself to Mr Kettle? I believe you have some sort of colour issue in common.
I mean, Jesus Bell; you don't think that you saying that of someone else is irony on such a base level that it's untrue? I've lost count of the number of issue's you've oversimplified in order to avoid admitting error. Hell, even the only one that saw you admitting a mistake only came after several days of completely missing the point in the first place...
> Oh dear someone doesn't quite seem to have grasped the complexities of
> this...
~points and laughs~
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!
Mr Pot, would be be so good as to introduce yourself to Mr Kettle? I believe you have some sort of colour issue in common.
I mean, Jesus Bell; you don't think that you saying that of someone else is irony on such a base level that it's untrue? I've lost count of the number of issue's you've oversimplified in order to avoid admitting error. Hell, even the only one that saw you admitting a mistake only came after several days of completely missing the point in the first place...
Oh dear someone doesn't quite seem to have grasped the complexities of this...
There should be no further inquests into the death of Diana. It would be a waste of time and money and would not discover anything new. Her children are right, she should now be left to rest in peace, it cannot be easy for them to have her constantly in the public spotlight after all this time.
With regard to the 'letter' that has suddenly come to light - get real. She was so paranoid about it that she wrote a letter to her butler? She was so paranoid that she got into a car with a reportedly drunk driver?
The only lesson that should be learnt from her death is the fact that you should belt up, front and back. The only person who walked away from the accident was the person who wore his seatbelt.
Whether there was a cover up or not makes little difference to us lowly mortals. As far as I am aware there is no one conspiring my death or even yours. If the upper echelons are playing games then let them get on with it, they affect me not.
With regard to the 'letter' that has suddenly come to light - get real. She was so paranoid about it that she wrote a letter to her butler? She was so paranoid that she got into a car with a reportedly drunk driver?
The only lesson that should be learnt from her death is the fact that you should belt up, front and back. The only person who walked away from the accident was the person who wore his seatbelt.
Whether there was a cover up or not makes little difference to us lowly mortals. As far as I am aware there is no one conspiring my death or even yours. If the upper echelons are playing games then let them get on with it, they affect me not.
Page: