The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Cubist wrote:
> I think you missed the main point of it all Ashley. If your Mum or
> other close family relative was killed and there was a possibility it
> could be murder would you just say. "Ah well it's been a few
> years and I don't want any of you guys to get fired so we'll just
> forget about the whole thing" ? Well would you? I know I
> wouldn't.
True i wouldn't but thats being emotional, fact is william and harry say they just want the issue dropped and for her to rest in peace. Just because 91% of the vieewers of richard and judy want an inquest doesn't mean we should have one. Second of all they would never be able to pin it on those actually responsible and at best a scapegoat would get punished.
The fact that Diana was hugely in the public eye at the
> time for being such a shining example of what the monarchy should be
> like makes the public want to know the truth aswell. Diana was the
> only person in the Monarchy I ever knew who really helped people
> around the world and for her to possibly be murdered is something the
> public is not willing to accept. We want to know (if it is true) why
> such a good person was murdered.
Um highly debatable. Personally I didn't like Diana, I had very little time for her, i particularly disliked the fact that Charles was vilified and she was revered as some kind of goddess by the middle aged women of this country. The worst thing was that charles was vilified for having a relatively discreet affair, Diana was woshiped for sleeping with the england rugby captain and before anything a particularly indiscreet air force major.
Diana just turned up every now and again, held a baby and said "land mines are bad", whoopie. Mother teresa Dies a week later and nobody gives a toss, lets get things in proportion.
>
> Of course this doesn't apply to everyone in the UK but a pretty damn
> high percentage. I would certainly like to know the truth and I hope
> it is found out.
The truth? It maybe a cliche, but the truth is what ever those in power decide it is. She wasn't bumped of by terrorists or by a jealous lover, if she was murdeed it was by those at the top and i am afraid they are the ones who decide what the truth is.
> I think you missed the main point of it all Ashley. If your Mum or
> other close family relative was killed and there was a possibility it
> could be murder would you just say. "Ah well it's been a few
> years and I don't want any of you guys to get fired so we'll just
> forget about the whole thing" ? Well would you? I know I
> wouldn't.
True i wouldn't but thats being emotional, fact is william and harry say they just want the issue dropped and for her to rest in peace. Just because 91% of the vieewers of richard and judy want an inquest doesn't mean we should have one. Second of all they would never be able to pin it on those actually responsible and at best a scapegoat would get punished.
The fact that Diana was hugely in the public eye at the
> time for being such a shining example of what the monarchy should be
> like makes the public want to know the truth aswell. Diana was the
> only person in the Monarchy I ever knew who really helped people
> around the world and for her to possibly be murdered is something the
> public is not willing to accept. We want to know (if it is true) why
> such a good person was murdered.
Um highly debatable. Personally I didn't like Diana, I had very little time for her, i particularly disliked the fact that Charles was vilified and she was revered as some kind of goddess by the middle aged women of this country. The worst thing was that charles was vilified for having a relatively discreet affair, Diana was woshiped for sleeping with the england rugby captain and before anything a particularly indiscreet air force major.
Diana just turned up every now and again, held a baby and said "land mines are bad", whoopie. Mother teresa Dies a week later and nobody gives a toss, lets get things in proportion.
>
> Of course this doesn't apply to everyone in the UK but a pretty damn
> high percentage. I would certainly like to know the truth and I hope
> it is found out.
The truth? It maybe a cliche, but the truth is what ever those in power decide it is. She wasn't bumped of by terrorists or by a jealous lover, if she was murdeed it was by those at the top and i am afraid they are the ones who decide what the truth is.
pb wrote:
>a lot of stuff...
The point is that with no inquest then the real facts are subjective. One person walked out of that car crash alive, remember ? Plus police never identified or found a car seen leaving the the immediate area despite a massive search. The actual crash itself is conveniently located, in a covered tunnel which would limit the view of any witnesses should there have been any. There just seem to be an awful lot of small facts, and conveniences and coincidences with more emerging all the time.
Who is to say they car crash was not a cover for something else - the French inquest was botched and more for show, and we cannot just go off what her sons say and want because they're biased and may well be acting in the interests of the Royal Family and not their own - and seeing as an inquest is a legal requirement for just about every other such victim of accidents and such is it not rather bizarre to let the Royal Family dictate what does and does not apply to them in the first place ?
The problem with any conspiracy is that it multiplies, but there is usually a truth in it somewhere
>a lot of stuff...
The point is that with no inquest then the real facts are subjective. One person walked out of that car crash alive, remember ? Plus police never identified or found a car seen leaving the the immediate area despite a massive search. The actual crash itself is conveniently located, in a covered tunnel which would limit the view of any witnesses should there have been any. There just seem to be an awful lot of small facts, and conveniences and coincidences with more emerging all the time.
Who is to say they car crash was not a cover for something else - the French inquest was botched and more for show, and we cannot just go off what her sons say and want because they're biased and may well be acting in the interests of the Royal Family and not their own - and seeing as an inquest is a legal requirement for just about every other such victim of accidents and such is it not rather bizarre to let the Royal Family dictate what does and does not apply to them in the first place ?
The problem with any conspiracy is that it multiplies, but there is usually a truth in it somewhere
In my personal opinion I don't honestly give a toss about Diana and her death. It's media breeding ground - they see it - they manipulate and blow it outta proportion.
No offence to any 'Pro Diana' people out there - But I found that Diana had no other purpose in being so 'popular' - All she ever did was hug gorrila's and visit land-mine infested schools. It's not like she's Mother Teresa is it?
6 years ago. She's dead. What the funk is the point in the enquiry and why does anyone honestly care?
I don't.
No offence to any 'Pro Diana' people out there - But I found that Diana had no other purpose in being so 'popular' - All she ever did was hug gorrila's and visit land-mine infested schools. It's not like she's Mother Teresa is it?
6 years ago. She's dead. What the funk is the point in the enquiry and why does anyone honestly care?
I don't.
Hmm. I don't care, but I feel like, in a way, I should.
I saw a program on it last night (a 'Tonight' (Trevor McDonald) rerun). I didn't want to, but there was nothing else on.
The whole argument seems to revolve around witnesses and video footage suggesting that the driver wasn't drunk and didn't have loads of carbom monoxide in his blood, contrary to autopsy results.
So if there was a conspiracy, presumably there was monkey business in the hospital, so the car crash would only have been needed to get them to hospital, where they could then be killed, the deaths blamed on the crash.
However, the supporting evidence looks a bit lame.
If there was a conspiracy, you want to know who it was? It's probably better to look at who gained from the death, rather than chase a paper trail.
Who benefitted? Feck knows.
But if there was a conspiracy to murder 'untouchable' public figures, it's got to be in everyones' interests to uncover it.
That's why I feel I should care. But when the case looks so weak, and I just don't really care about the person, it's hard to be bothered.
I saw a program on it last night (a 'Tonight' (Trevor McDonald) rerun). I didn't want to, but there was nothing else on.
The whole argument seems to revolve around witnesses and video footage suggesting that the driver wasn't drunk and didn't have loads of carbom monoxide in his blood, contrary to autopsy results.
So if there was a conspiracy, presumably there was monkey business in the hospital, so the car crash would only have been needed to get them to hospital, where they could then be killed, the deaths blamed on the crash.
However, the supporting evidence looks a bit lame.
If there was a conspiracy, you want to know who it was? It's probably better to look at who gained from the death, rather than chase a paper trail.
Who benefitted? Feck knows.
But if there was a conspiracy to murder 'untouchable' public figures, it's got to be in everyones' interests to uncover it.
That's why I feel I should care. But when the case looks so weak, and I just don't really care about the person, it's hard to be bothered.
I'm not really to bothered about who died, it's the implication that there is the minutest chance that someone or some agency was involved that interests me. I'm still only around 5% certain that that is the case, but there's the chance, and if you look back recently there seems to be a slight trend involving or alledging certain agencies doing things they should not or being involved in ways they shouldn't, or similar. At least two politicians, Dr John Reed and another have both, at times, made public statements about forces working without the government- was it mere throwaway comment or something more ? Probably throwaway comments, but still...
I think there should be a public inquiry. There are too many unanswered questions. The bodyguard Rhys-Jones has insisted that Henry Paul was as sober as a judge - the security camera shows him bending down quickly to tie his shoelaces and then standing up again showing no signs of drunkedness whatsoever.
And what was it that the Queen said to Burrell: "There are forces in this country which we know nothing about". Some monarchists were calling Diana a "loose cannon" when she was campaigning against land mines, so imagine what they were thinking when she was dating Al-Fayad's son - images of rogue pregnancy and marriage to someone of Arab descent must have troubled them greatly.
The Monarchy hasn't survived in its privileged position for hundreds of yers by pure chance; some people take it very seriously, and will do anything to protect it.
And what was it that the Queen said to Burrell: "There are forces in this country which we know nothing about". Some monarchists were calling Diana a "loose cannon" when she was campaigning against land mines, so imagine what they were thinking when she was dating Al-Fayad's son - images of rogue pregnancy and marriage to someone of Arab descent must have troubled them greatly.
The Monarchy hasn't survived in its privileged position for hundreds of yers by pure chance; some people take it very seriously, and will do anything to protect it.
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.
Oh dear someone doesn't quite seem to have grasped the complexities of this...
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...
Gosh, there are complexities? Sorry didn't realise that.
Page: