DIANA LETTER SENSATION: 'THEY WILL TRY TO KILL ME'
DAILY MIRROR
Oct 20 2003
WORLD EXCLUSIVE
By Jane Kerr, Royal reporter
Inlaws or outlaws? World wide banner headline Monday, October 20, 2003  |
PRINCESS DIANA claimed there was a plot to kill her in a car crash in a handwritten letter only 10 months before she died. She gave it to her butler Paul Burrell with orders that he should keep it as "insurance" for the future.
The princess predicted: "This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous." She said "XXXXXXXXXXX is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry".
In the letter, revealed by the Daily Mirror today, Diana named who she believed was plotting to kill her. But the Mirror is not able to repeat the allegation for legal reasons so we have blanked that part of the letter out.
The document will fuel the conspiracy theories which have raged in the six years since she was killed in a Paris car crash.
But it also appears to bring fresh importance to a warning by the Queen that there were "powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge".
The Queen was speaking to Burrell at Buckingham Palace in a meeting that would prove crucial in the collapse of his trial for theft.
Now, plagued by that meeting and deeply troubled that there has still been no inquest in Britain into the death of Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, Burrell has come forward with the stunning new evidence.
In his new book A Royal Duty the former servant – cleared last year of stealing Diana's possessions – claims she began to worry about her security TWO YEARS before her death and that this led her to record her fears in the document.
Before sealing the letter in an envelope marked "Paul", the princess told him: "I'm going to date this and I want you to keep it ... just in case."
In the second paragraph of the document, written in October 1996, Diana explained in the plainest possible language that she was convinced of the plot to mastermind an accident.
Burrell describes in his book the events that led the princess to write the document at her desk in Kensington Palace.
Diana's divorce from Prince Charles had been finalised less than two months earlier.
The princess, who had cut down on her charities to focus on Aids, leprosy and victims of homelessness, was enjoying huge public support.
But according to Burrell, by the autumn of 1996 she had "an overpowering feeling that she was 'in the way'."
He adds: "Rightly or wrongly she felt the stronger she became, the more she was regarded as a modernising nuisance.
"She certainly felt that 'the system' didn't appreciate her work and that for as long as she was on the scene Prince Charles could never properly move on."
Burrell says the princess told him: "I have become strong and they don't like it when I am able to do good and stand on my own two feet without them."
THE princess's anxiety deepened to such an extent that she ordered a sweep of her apartments at Kensington Palace for listening devices.
By October 1996 she once again confided in Burrell that she believed there was a concerted attempt to undermine her in the public's eyes.
She recalled that she had been brooding about Charles's relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles and the continuing role of Tiggy Legge Bourke, nanny to Princes William and Harry, in the Royal Household.
Burrell says the princess was feeling "undervalued and unappreciated". But at the root of her fears she said she was constantly puzzled" by attempts by Prince Charles's supporters to "destroy her".
With these thoughts and fears in her head, Diana decided to put her fears to paper, says Burrell.
The letter betrays the loneliness Diana was feeling: "I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high." According to Burrell it was not the first time Diana had felt it neccessary to record what was happening to her. He said: I became the repository for royal truths.
"These notes are her legacy and are crucial to the truths that enshrine her memory and debunk the damaging myths that seem to have been peddled since the day she died."
Diana and Dodi Fayed were killed in the early hours of August 31 1997 when a Mercedes S280 driven by drunken chauffeur Henri Paul careered into the Pont d'Alma tunnel in the French capital.
An inquiry in 1999 by the French authorities blamed Paul, concluding that he had taken a cocktail of drink and drugs before losing control of the car because he was speeding.
However, there has been a growing unwillingness by the public to accept the official version of her death.
BURRELL admitted he shares the doubts. He said: "With the benefit of hindsight, the content of that letter has bothered me since her death."
It will strike a chord among people who remain puzzled by inconsistences in her death, including questions over a mysterious white Fiat Uno which grazed the Mercedes in the tunnel and over blood samples taken from Henri Paul.
Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi's father, has spent tens of thousands of pounds on a private investigation, convinced that Diana and Dodi were murdered by British security services at the behest of Establishment forces.
But Diana's family refuse to believe the theories. Her mother Frances Shand Kydd accepted the findings of the French inquiry "without reservation".
Diana's brother Earl Spencer also said he was satisfied that the authorities had "reached the right conclusion".
Hopes that some of the mysteries would be unravelled were dashed last month.
A spokesman for the royal coroner Michael Burgess said the date for an inquest on Diana would be announced within days.
But hours later Mr Burgess ordered the statement to be withdrawn, saying it was premature" to suggest a date and refusing to give a timescale.
The lack of an inquest and his prosecution for theft in 2002 steeled Burrell's determination to make public the princess's concerns for her security.
"That letter has been part of the burden I have carried since the princess's death. Knowing what to do with it has been a source of much soul-searching."
He insists that whether it is a wild coincidence" or an explanation for the tragedy is a matter for a coroner's court.
He adds: "It may be futile in what it achieves because it can do no more than provide yet another question mark.
"But if that question mark leads to an inquest and a thorough investigation of the facts by the British authorities it will have achieved something."
Police may question Charles over letter
By Robert Verkaik
The Independent
08 January 2004
Prince Charles faced the public yesterday amid growing speculation that he would be interviewed by police over a letter written by Diana, Princess of Wales in which she said she suspected him of plotting her murder in a car crash.
The Prince of Wales chose the opening of the Hereford Haven, a breast cancer support centre, to make his first public appearance since the coroner to the Queen's Household, Michael Burgess, asked Sir John Stevens to head a police inquiry into deaths of the Princess and Dodi Fayed.
Yesterday Sir John, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, asked Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alan Brown to take over as head of the investigation from Commander David Armond, in recognition of the size of the task facing his force. Sir John confirmed he would oversee the investigation.
Sir John also hinted that royal witnesses would not be excluded from the inquiry. "The MPS will thoroughly examine all matters that will assist in preparation of the inquests," he said. "Although it is over six years since the sad events in Paris, all relevant evidence will be carefully considered."
A crowd of around 100 cheered the Prince as he arrived at the Haven Trust.One man shouted: "Well done, Charles, the country is behind you!"A woman added: "Keep your chin up, Charles."
In a separate development Mr Burgess's predecessor, former royal coroner Dr John Burton, tried to extinguish growing speculation that Diana was pregnant when she died.
Dr Burton, who was coroner to the Queen's Household when Diana was killed, insisted he had always said she was not pregnant. He said the examination of the Princess's womb was a routine procedure.
CHARLES TO BE QUIZZED
Sky News
January 23, 2004
Britain's most senior police officer will reportedly personally ask Prince Charles if he plotted to kill Diana, Princess of Wales.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens believes only he should handle the sensitive interview, reports the Daily Mail.
The newspaper says Charles, who will accompanied by his new lawyer Gerrard Tyrrell, is keen to end the conspiracy theories over his ex-wife's death as soon as possible.
Senior police sources claim Sir John will conduct the interview during the summer and will draw up a list of specific questions to ask.
Earlier this month, Royal Family coroner Michael Burgess opened inquests into the deaths of Diana and her partner Dodi Fayed and asked police to examine claims surrounding the fatal car crash.
Speaking on BBC News 24, Sir John confirmed he would interview Prince Charles if necessary.
Asked about conspiracy theories, he replied: "You have my word that we will look at this.
"By the time this inquiry has been finished and we've looked at every single part of these allegations we will know what the truth of the matter is and then we will disclose that to the coroner."
A senior police source told the Daily Mail: "There will never be a better opportunity to make sure all these conspiracy theories are properly investigated."
This time it wasn't the butler that did it
The climax should involve the royals being led into a room, where a detective stands in the middle
Mark Steel
The Independent
08 January 2004
Surely the investigation into Diana's crash should be shown 24 hours a day on a reality TV channel. And the climax should involve all the royals being led into a drawing room, where a detective stands in the middle saying: "The difficulty with this case is that every one of you had a motive." Then he slowly reveals the results of his inquiries, occasionally saying something like: "When I found a manual on how to destroy brake pads hidden under the Imperial Crown, I suspected you, Elizabeth." To which they would make replies such as: "Why, inspector, that's preposterous."
Article Length: 808 words (approx.)
PRINCESS BLAIR HEART ATTACK SCARE
By Bob Roberts, Political Correspondent
DAILY MIRROR
Oct 20 2003
TONY Blair was rushed to hospital yesterday with a heart problem.
He complained of feeling a "little bit under the weather" at his country residence Chequers and was taken to Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
There he was advised to go to Hammersmith Hospital in West London. He was admitted as an emergency and doctors spent five hours doing tests on the 50-year-old Prime Minister.
He had a cardio conversion - electro shock therapy or an injection of chemicals to stabilise his heart. [Sounds like Dr. David Kelly's electro-shock 'suicide" after testifying in Parliament, that Tony Blair and George "The Texascutioner" Bush lied about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Distraction" to justify looting trillions of taxdollars with their Gulf War #2....]
[Is snobby trial lawyer ("barrister") and Eton graduate Tony "Labour Party" Blair related to fellow Eton graduate, murdered(?) British secret agent Eric Blair (a/k/a George Orwell, whistleblowing author of1984)...?]
BLAIR'S A PSYCHO CLAIM HIS LABOUR RIVALS
By Paul Gilfeather Whitehall Editor
Daily Mirror
Jul 18 2003
TONY Blair was branded a "psychopath" yesterday in a magazine owned by Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest political ally.
In what was being seen by Downing Street as an open declaration of war, ex-minister Geoffrey Robinson's New Statesman dedicated an entire edition to the Prime Minister's potential demise.
The onslaught even forced Mr Blair's official spokesman to deny the Premier had gone "potty".
The magazine said: "He is a man who doesn't really know who he is. More technically, he is diagnosed as a psychopath capable of reinventing himself with remarkable dexterity, like an actor."
It added: "What most people call spin - the routine lubricant of all political gearboxes - is, in Blair's case, eloquent self-delusion on a heroic scale."
The article quoted psychologist Dr Paul Broks, who claimed: "Suppose it turns out that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
"Suppose the Prime Minister was indeed party to the ramping up of what flimsy evidence there might have been in order to keep us on a pre-set course for war.
"Set this against his affiliative personal style and the profile that begins to emerge is that of a plausible psychopath - charming, intelligent, emotionally manipulative, ruthlessly ambitious and self-serving."
The article added: "Therapists agree that the ability to disassociate yourself from the consequences of what you have done is a classic ingredient of the psychopathic condition."
For such a hatchet piece to be published in a Labour-supporting magazine is a huge blow for Mr Blair, who is under attack from all sides in his party.
But millionaire Mr Robinson, who has expressed growing frustration at Mr Blair's apparent unwillingness to hand over to Mr Brown, did not stop there.
In another feature, entitled "What's the point of Tony Blair?", the magazine claimed that even the Premier's most trusted aides were discussing regime change.
And the New Statesman's editorial said: "The PM looks rather dangerous, given to foolish foreign adventures and silly schemes.
"Mr Brown seems to offer safety and continuity. The reality is that a Brown government would have a sense of purpose that the Blair government lacks."
Incredibly, Mr Blair's spokesman Tom Kelly allowed himself to be drawn into the questions raised over the PM's sanity.
Asked if Mr Blair had gone potty, he said: "The term potty sounds slightly potty to me. Equally, psychopath is a very strange term to use."
He added: "Look at what the Prime Minister has achieved in the past six months in terms of handling major international issues such as Iraq, in pursuing progress in the Middle East settlement and in pursuing public service delivery at home.
"I think you will see a Prime Minister who has a very clear sense of direction."
Home Secretary David Blunkett also leapt to the PM's defence last night. He told Channel 4 News: "The people we have to worry about most are those you would describe as being loyal who stab us in the back. Tony Blair goes on because Tony Blair is acknowledged as a world statesman who has transformed the Labour Party and our Government."
Coventry MP Mr Robinson, who resigned after it emerged he gave ex-minister Peter Mandelson a £373,000 home loan, believes Mr Brown's time has now come.
One senior Labour MP said: "He is playing king-maker for Gordon and it is relentless."
Diana's death likened to MI6 plot
JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT
THE SCOTSMAN
16 Dec 2003
MORE than six years after the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al-Fayed, the questions surrounding the Paris car crash in which they were killed continue to grip the public imagination.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh became the centre of international attention yesterday as Mohamed al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods, pursued his search for the truth about how, or why, his son and Diana died.
"I have been fighting for six years, but I can see the light and justice can be done. What I am doing is for the nation and for the ordinary people ... Eighty-five per cent believe Diana was murdered with my son."
The court heard Mr Fayed's counsel contend that he had "substantial grounds" for fearing that the British security services were implicated. The crash, it was claimed, had "striking similarities" to an earlier MI6 plot to remove Slobodan Milosevic, then president of Serbia.
Colin Boyd, QC, the Lord Advocate, has refused an inquiry into the crash, but Mr Fayed maintains that as a resident of Scotland, at Balnagown Castle, Kildary, Easter Ross, he is entitled to secure his rights under the tenets of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr Fayed argues there should be an effective, official inquiry when someone appears to have been killed as a result of the use of force and is asking Lord Drummond Young to set aside the Lord Advocate's decision as incompatible with the ECHR.
Richard Keen, QC, for Mr Fayed, said that the official line from the French police after the crash in a tunnel in Paris in the early hours of 31 August, 1997, was that it had been an accident caused by Henri Paul, assistant head of security at the Ritz hotel and the driver of the Mercedes the couple died in. The French police said Mr Paul was drunk and on anti-depressants at the time of the crash. Mr Paul also died in the incident.
"He [Mr Paul] had been in the Ritz Hotel for two hours before he left and is recalled by all those who spoke with him as being entirely sober," said Mr Keen. He said British and American security services were monitoring Diana and Dodi in the month leading up to their deaths and that Henri Paul may have been an MI6 informant.
And on the night of the crash Mr Paul had taken a "highly unusual route" from the Ritz to Dodi's apartment.
The QC said pieces of a broken tail-light, from a white Fiat Uno, had been found at the scene of the crash, and there were marks on the bumper of the Mercedes.
Inquiries had "led to the suggestion" that the driver of the Fiat might have been James Andanson, a member of the paparazzi who had been pursuing the couple that summer, although he denied being in Paris that night. In 2000, Mr Andanson's body was found. It was initially treated as murder, but then was declared to have been suicide.
Mr Keen said there had been reports of a flash of light in the tunnel, which would have blinded a driver.
A former MI6 agent [Richard Tomlinson] had said the circumstances bore "striking similarities" to a plan in 1992 to assassinate [President] Milosevic [in Bosnia, during the invasion, hostile takeover and deconstruction by United Nations Corporation and its CIA/MI6 employee Usama Bin Laden]. The agent had also revealed that MI6 had an informant on the security staff at the Ritz Hotel. After the crash, it was learned that Mr Paul had 13 bank accounts containing more than a million francs.
"It might suggest he had at least some kind of part-time job," said Mr Keen.
Diana had expressed fears for her safety, and Mr Keen added: "If her fears had only one ounce of truth in October 1996, one is entitled to ask how much greater they may have been in August 1997 when the general anticipation was that a person denigrated by sections of the establishment was about to become stepfather to the future [homosexual/bisexual] king [in a kilt]," said Mr Keen.
Mr Keen said Diana and Princes William and Harry were being monitored from around 10 July, 1997, when they arrived at the Fayed estate in St Tropez in the south of France.
After the couple arrived at Beauvais airport on August 30, Mr Keen told the court, "as a matter of practice French security reported the arrival of the Princess to the UK embassy assuming they were not aware of it.
Mr Keen added that the US National Security Agency has confirmed the Princess was the subject of monitoring at the time of the crash.
The hearing is expected to last several days, and the judge will issue his ruling later.
[Tell us something we don't already know. Perhaps someone will post/spam hearing transcripts of all testimony and judicial orders...]
Date set for princess's inquest
BBC NEWS
18 December, 2003
The inquests into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed will be opened on 6 January 2004, it has been announced.
Princess Diana, 36, and Mr Al Fayed, 42, died in a Paris car crash in 1997.
Surrey Coroner Michael Burgess said the "complexity of the situation" meant it had taken over a year to set a date.
Princess Diana's inquest will be held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, London, while Mr Al Fayed's will open in Reigate, Surrey.
There will be two separate inquests.
Mr Burgess said he had been in touch with the Royal Family and the relatives of Mr Al Fayed to advise them of the date.
Dodi's father, Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed, welcomed the news, but said he would continue to call for a full public inquiry into the crash.
Mr Burgess said there would not be witnesses on the opening day but he would outline the procedure of the inquest and the nature and scope of evidence he expected to be brought.
Delay
The inquest into the death of the princess will be opened by Mr Burgess, as coroner of The Queen's Household, at 1030 GMT.
Mr Al Fayed's will also be opened by him in his capacity as Coroner for Surrey, at 1500 GMT at Wray Park, Reigate, Surrey.
"I stated in October 2003 that I intended to hold inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed," Mr Burgess said.
"The opening of these inquests has been the subject of discussion and correspondence with the families for some time but because of the complexity of the situation the final arrangements have taken rather longer to complete than I would have wished."
Inquiry call
On news of the announcement, a Clarence House spokesman said: "It's entirely a matter for the coroner.
"We always understood the law required an inquest at some point."
The inquests will be the first official public hearings in Britain to examine the circumstances surrounding the princess's death.
They have been delayed by a lengthy police investigation and other factors.
Both hearings are likely to be adjourned and no date has yet been given for when the full hearings will take place.
'Narrow remit'
Mohamed Al Fayed does not accept the official report in 1999 into the crash which blamed the couple's driver Henri Paul, who had been drinking.
He approached the Scottish courts this week to mount a legal argument for a public inquiry into their deaths.
His spokesman said that while the development was encouraging, it did not change Mr Al Fayed's desire for a public inquiry.
"The remit of a coroner's inquest is far too narrow. It's merely to determine the cause of death," Chester Stern said.
"Some people have said to me he's achieved a breakthrough, but this doesn't affect what's happening in the court in Scotland.
"This is a matter which requires open public scrutiny on a much broader scale than an inquest can offer."
WATCH AND LISTEN
The BBC's Tim Willcox: "The inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, is now finally just weeks away"
The accidental death of a Princess or murder most foul?
Now the coroner must begin his quest for the truth
By Robert Verkaik and Kim Sengupta
The Independent
07 January 2004
Even by the standards of the sensational claims and headlines which have appeared in the six years since the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, yesterday was quite extraordinary.
It began with the Daily Mirror, long the scourge of the Royal Family, and its decision to name for the first time the Prince of Wales as the person Diana apparently suspected of plotting to kill her in a car crash. When it first published the story three months ago, it had blacked out his name, fuelling fevered speculation.
Hours later, Michael Burgess, the Coroner of the Queen's Household, announced as he opened Diana's inquest that he was asking the Metropolitan Police to investigate the crash. He chose his words carefully, and the conspiracy theorists seized on them with gusto. For he acknowledged that the crash in August 1997 may have been something other than a "straightforward" accident.
Here, perhaps, was a gear change; recognition that the speculation needed to be addressed; either to seek evidence of support, or to nail the theories once and for all.
A theory that the Princess may have been deliberately killed, rather than the victim of her driver's drinking and a car chase to escape the paparazzi, was backed by a handful of conspiracists in the immediate aftermath of her demise. But a recent poll in The Sunday Express came out with an astonishing result: 85 per cent of respondents apparently believed that the crash was murder. On the internet, there are no fewer than 10,000 sites dedicated to the events in the Pont d'Alma tunnel that night.
The stakes in all this are high: higher even than in November, when Prince Charles opted for a high-risk strategy and publicly denied an alleged scandal involving him and his closest royal servant. As in that case, if there is any merit in the claim that Diana was a target of the Royal Family, the monarchy is in real trouble. It will be the job of Mr Burgess, assisted by the Metropolitan Police, to assess this. The belief that the Princess was murdered is most widespread in the Arab world, expounded not just in the bazaars but by those in authority. The killing, it is maintained, was carried out by a British establishment determined to stop her marrying a Muslim man, Dodi Fayed, and becoming the mother of Muslim children. A leading French police official told The Independent on Sunday last month that she was pregnant.
Mohamed Al Fayed, the owner of Harrods and the father of her partner of several months, has been the driving force behind the campaign to prove that the Princess and his son were murdered. He has sounded touched at times; yesterday must have felt like vindication. Central to the inquiry will be the alcohol level in the blood of Henri Paul, the man who drove the couple on the fateful night. There are contradictory reports of how much he had drunk that evening.
Mr Fayed and the family of M. Paul, fiercely dispute the amount and suggest tests on him were falsified.
The tests showed that M. Paul had consumed large quantities of alcohol, as well as anti-depressant drugs. There were also the second test results and witness reports, and a bar bill from the Ritz, suggesting that he had been drinking heavily.
Questions have also emerged as to why M. Paul, an assistant head of hotel security, on a salary of £20,000 a year, had £122,000 in a number of bank accounts. Where did it come from? His friend Paul Garrec claimed that he had "contacts in intelligence". Why was M. Paul, off duty, called back to the hotel and assigned the job to drive the couple? Add this all together, and the conspiracy theorists' solution is simple: he was in the pay of MI6 (and was presumably sacrificed by his bosses).
Perhaps the most baffling mystery concerns the white Fiat Uno car, which was alleged to be at the crash scene. A number of witnesses said they saw it leave the scene at high speed. It is suggested the car clipped the couple's Mercedes before it crashed. Despite a massive hunt involving 40,000 identical cars in Paris, the vehicle and its driver were never found.
James Andanson, a French cameraman who admitted he drove a white Fiat Uno but denied being in the Paris tunnel that night, has since died in mysterious circumstances. In 2000, his remains were found in a burnt-out car amid speculation that he was murdered.
In another twist, a French news agency whose photographers were involved in the chase was the subject of a break-in. But the agency insists that there is no connection between the two events.
Perhaps the key witness will be Trevor Rees-Jones, the Princess's bodyguard and sole survivor in the Mercedes. He suffered severe injuries but survived because he was wearing a seat belt. He has always maintained that the crash was an accident.
Had Diana been wearing a seatbelt, of course, she too may have survived. Seatbelts can save lives, and Ken Wharfe, her former bodyguard, said that the first element of any security drill was to make sure she was buckled up. So why wasn't she? The issue of pregnancy may loom large. No concrete evidence has emerged either way. The senior police source in France who claimed that Diana was pregnant was also sure that her death was accidental. But a cover-up might explain some of the events seized on by conspiracy theorists.
The coroner must also address the question of why it took so long for Diana to be taken to hospital. It took 100 minutes to get her there, at least 10 times longer than it should have done at that time of night, but doctors believed it was better to treat her at the scene, and the ambulance went slowly for fear of exacerbating her injuries. Prince Charles's former press secretary Colleen Harris dismissed the Daily Mirror's story. It was, she said "absolute nonsense". Ten months before she died, Diana had written: "My husband is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury ... to make the path clear for him to marry''.
But why would he? They had separated in 1992, and were divorced more than a year before she died. Camilla Parker Bowles was unpopular with the public at that time but would he really have been party to murder? Or is the letter evidence of Diana's fragile mental state?
Accidental death, or murder most foul? Now it is up to Mr Burgess to decide.
JOKES OF THE DAY
"In the event that I am reincarnated I would like to return as a deadly virus in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
—His Royal Highness Prince Philip, husband Queen Elizabeth of Britain, father-in-law of Princess Diana, from autobiography, Down to Earth: Speeches and Writings of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, on the Relationship of Man With His Environment, in chapter titled, "His Royal Virus"
"Mohamed al-Fayed has issued a challenge to the Duke of Edinburgh during the second day of his cross examination in the libel trial brought against him by Neil Hamilton. Mr al-Fayed called on Prince Philip to sue him over his allegations that the Duke had "masterminded" a conspiracy to kill the Princess of Wales and his son Dodi. The events surrounding the death of Diana Princess of Wales dominated proceedings at the High Court on Monday where Neil Hamilton is suing the Harrods boss for libel. Mr Hamilton says his career was ruined when Mr al-Fayed claimed in a Channel 4 programme that the former Tory MP took cash for asking parliamentary questions. He has always denied the allegations.
Seeking to establish a pattern of persistent dishonesty, Mr Hamilton's lawyer, Desmond Browne QC, asked Mr al-Fayed about his controversial theory that the deaths of Diana and his son, Dodi, was caused by the British security services and his claims that Diana and Dodi planned to marry. The Egyptian-born businessman stood by his earlier claim that Prince Philip was responsible for the fatal 1997 car crash. Mr Browne QC, asked Mr al-Fayed about his involvement in an ITV programme suggesting the Paris crash killing Princess Diana and Dodi had been the result of a conspiracy. 'I have told you before I am a father who has lost his son and I have the right to do anything to find out how I lost my son. I have the right to find out how my son has been killed.' Mr Browne then said Mr al-Fayed had accused the Duke of Edinburgh of masterminding the crash because of his 'German blood and Nazi views'. During the day's proceedings Mr al-Fayed made references to the recent revelations about Lord Archer and to the imprisonment of the former Tory MP Jonathan Aitken. Mr al-Fayed accused the former Home Secretary, Michael Howard, of receiving a £1m bribe from rival tycoon Tiny Rowland to obstruct his purchase of Harrods."
—BBC News, "Al-Fayed challenges Duke to sue," 22 November 1999
Dolly Parton & Princess Diana are strapped for cash and both go for a job interview at a Casino. They are waiting outside & the interviewer calls Dolly in, he shuts the door and asks, "How desperate are you for this job?", so Dolly takes off her top & shows the interviewer her tits, in amazement the intervewer says, "You've got the job". He sends her outside and calls Princess Diana in, he shuts the door & asks, "How desperate are you for this job?" So Princess Diana grabs the man's head and buries it deep up her skirt, gasping for breath the man says, "You've definately got the job". He calls Dolly back in and says, "Sorry Dolly but I have decided to give the job to Princess Diana". Dolly says, "But earlier you said I had got the job." "Yeah," says the man, "but don't you know the rules of the house?" "What rules?" replies Dolly. So the man says, "A ROYAL FLUSH ALWAYS BEATS A PAIR!!!!!" [Apparently composed by Prince Philip and the Royal Flushers.]
Drive across the English Channel or Chunnel to jolly old Britain, and try Mr. Brain's Faggots - "Meet the Doody family – true faggot fanatics" - and lest we forget: "National Faggot Week - a British knees-up, a fun night out with Dr Faggot and the Mr Brain's Faggot Family. A company spokesman said: 'We are looking for a family with Brains. The winner will get a contract, and all the faggots they can eat. Do you dare eat Mr Brains faggots in a famous public place? DON'T BE SHY, send in a photograph, along with your name, address, email address and become a member of our Faggot Photo Gallery.'" Or perhaps, try the taste of Spotted Dick ("The Queen's favorite desert.")
Next |
Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2003 by
John Lee and Winners Web Design
This page is distributed without profit for
research and educational purposes under 17 USC 107
Remember to bookmark this site
And Drive Safe
Free search engine submission
| 
