0
   

94% OF YOU BELIEVE DIANA WAS MURDERED

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 06:16 am
If they were unlawfully killed, partly (mostly) by the behaviour of a driver employed by the Ritz, maybe we should sue the owner of the Ritz for reimbursement of the trial costs at least.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 07:19 am
Isn't there anyone we can just shoot, and be done with it?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 09:04 am
McTag wrote:
If they were unlawfully killed, partly (mostly) by the behaviour of a driver employed by the Ritz, maybe we should sue the owner of the Ritz for reimbursement of the trial costs at least.


I could imagine that the Crown might think of - and try to get the money back in a civil case.

But in England and under British law?

So let's try to reopen proceedings in Paris .... or even better: follow Set's advice.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 10:03 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
So quite literally the "accident" was not an accident! It would not have happened if other people had not done what they did.


this is why I commented on intent. In our jurisdiction, it is an "accident" by definition, unless intent can be proven.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 10:04 am
McTag wrote:
If they were unlawfully killed, partly (mostly) by the behaviour of a driver employed by the Ritz, maybe we should sue the owner of the Ritz for reimbursement of the trial costs at least.


and that would be Mr. al Fayed.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 10:11 am
Zackly.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 10:36 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Again, to all the folk who selected accident on the poll for this thread, I say you were wrong.


you can say that, but you'd be wrong (except for any British poll-takers you can out)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 11:28 am
Again the interesting thing about this verdict is that it was not an accident. She was unlawfully killed unintentionally or otherwise through the actions of others who are to blame.

Those who said it was a straightforward accident, with no blame attached to any party are wrong. I rest my case m'lud.

But hell, who cares?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 11:34 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Again the interesting thing about this verdict is that it was not an accident. She was unlawfully killed unintentionally or otherwise through the actions of others who are to blame.

Those who said it was a straightforward accident, with no blame attached to any party are wrong. I rest my case m'lud.

But hell, who cares?


Steve,

Your poll asked "Was she murdered?"

Your conclusion is "she was unlawfully killed unintentionally."

What do you consider to be the correct answer to the way your poll was worded?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 06:24 pm
wandeljw wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Again the interesting thing about this verdict is that it was not an accident. She was unlawfully killed unintentionally or otherwise through the actions of others who are to blame.

Those who said it was a straightforward accident, with no blame attached to any party are wrong. I rest my case m'lud.

But hell, who cares?


Steve,

Your poll asked "Was she murdered?"

Your conclusion is "she was unlawfully killed unintentionally."

What do you consider to be the correct answer to the way your poll was worded?
Well first I could have phrased that better with a comma or two...She was unlawfully killed, (unintentionally or otherwise),

but you ask a reasonable question. I didnt give the coroners verdict options because when I started this thread many years ago...(Smile) the idea that there might be a coroners verdict was still a long way off.

But to answer directly I think the nearest option in the poll to the jury verdict would be option 2 "Possibly, we will never know the truth".

That certainly sums up my position. The more I think about this, the more I am astounded that the jury did not actually come to the conclusion "accidental death". The pressure on them must have been immense. Yet they went for unlawful killing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 12:55 am
The BBC:
Quote:
The cost of the investigation into the death of Princess Diana has topped £12.5m, new figures show.


£12.5m = $24.6m = 15.5m€
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 01:05 am
Damn and blast. We should be able to charge a lot of that to Mohammed al Pillock.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 01:09 am
Quote:
Last week's survey for BBC Two's Newsnight found only 19% of those questioned thought the truth was worth the money it cost to uncover it.
the answer you get depends on the question you ask.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 04:03 am
Drink driving, speed and seat belt. That cost 12.5 million pounds. How pathetic. Now bury the bitch and get over it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 04:13 pm
she was buried 10+ years ago.

p.s. your sig line is tautological nonsense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 06:53 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
she was buried 10+ years ago.



You wouldn't know judging by the number of magazine covers she's still on.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 06:54 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:


p.s. your sig line is tautological nonsense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I disagree with your view. I am entitled to.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 02:06 am
you are of course entitled to disagree with my opinion Wilso, and I probably would not even have expressed it, had your post about Diana been less offensive.

regarding logic, I'm not so sure it is just a matter of opinion.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 08:35 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
and I probably would not even have expressed it, had your post about Diana been less offensive.



That's another thing. It's only offensive to you because of the ridiculous pedestal this woman was placed on by your country. If the stupid cow had put a seat belt on, she'd still be alive today, and the fact she didn't just proves how arrogant, aloof and isolated she was. She's DEAD - GET OVER IT. To me, she meant NOTHING. I see the royal family as a bunch of inbred misfits, and am completely ashamed of my country's connection to them. I see the Union Jack as a butcher's apron and am disgusted by the sight of it in the corner of our flag.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 02:03 am
Let's put you down as undecided, then.

It was a matter of concern to some Brits (although not this one) that the mother of the future king (and so Defender of the Faith, patron of the Church of England and so on) was turning into a serial muslim shagger and seemingly unconcerned about adverse opinion.

Certainly, a lot of people thought it might have been a good thing if she were removed, and quickly. Quite a reasonable assumption in some quarters therefore, that her death might be arranged by the state security services.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 01:03:57