| |
|
Let me repeat; I am not standing here waving a little Union Jack and saying "Gor Blimey, she was the people's princess." Don't care, didn't watch the funeral, believe in a republic, not a Diana fan.
Ganesh: I agree completely on Burrell's unreliability; this note appearing first in the press rather than in the courts or parliament reminds me a lot of Robin Cook's remembering that ol' Tone told him that Blair knew there were no WMDs - but rather than telling the Hutton Inquiry, for some reason this appeared in a Cook book first. It is a publicity stunt for a butler's book.
The idea that something must be wrong; yeah, I can see this is annoying, but I do get a feeling there is, as you say, 'Something The Proles Were Never Meant To Know' here (nice use of capitalisation!).
Whatever you think, the fact remains no inquest has been held (I'll get to Anna's point in a minute) leaves conspiracists with a wide open playing field. These theories would be laid to rest somewhat - there's always someone who would believe the jury was rigged or the coroner bribed - by an inquest.
Anna - It surprises me that people think that there were no inquests. Do you really, honestly believe that any inquest would be revealed to the public? This is the royal family we're talking about. They have a huge reputation for being intensely private about their personal affairs and you never hear anything about their official business.
Point one; this position is pretty conspiratorial in itself, isn't it? Rather than the Royal Family stopping the Inquest being held (which I'm not sure I believe anyway) instead they suppress its results, dates, times and even the mere fact it has been carried out. Possible, but implausible. Also, why no inquest into Dodi Fayed's death?
point two; Fuck the Royal family and their 'right' to keep their affairs private. I want to see them held to the same laws as the rest of us; this includes things like inquests and court cases being held in the open. It has already happened to Princess Anne, and I was pretty chuffed that she was held to account under the same terms as the Proles.
Our Lady: Don't you only have inquests when there's doubt about how someone died? How often are there inquests for car crash victims?
Well, I've covered three in the past few years, and I don't really cover inquests. There's often doubt about how someone died in a car crash; was it the road surface, speed, a driver drunk as hell, another vehicle, a driver high on drugs, a snake biting the driver on the foot as he approached a crossroads - any number of factors. It's not enough to say 'the car crashed - case closed.'
Anyway, that's a red herring - any death abroad, where the body is returned to Britain for burial, requires an inquest.
See here for more -
Dr John Burton, 71, has been campaigning for 20 years to change the law that says an inquest must be carried where a body is returned to Britain following a death abroad.
(I'm afraid that link goes to a story about the Royal Coroner fighting for a change in the law which would prevent Diana's inquest from being held. Sorry; no hidden meaning there, not suggesting he is trying to suppress the inquest, just a story which included the necessary information)
My main points are this; personally, I have a hunch something doesn't add up here; the Royal Family, like everyone else, should be answerable under British law and should have to go through the inquest process in the same way as anyone else; an inquest that should have been held has not yet been held; and I'm wasting far too much time in this thread and am now going to shut up... |
|
|
