Superdrug Launch Inquiry

thumb_5152_logo_retailer_1x

Superdrug has issued an apology to a young lady who was laughed at by two of their workers. Superdrug has begun a prompt inquiry into the event. However, Harriet Rae, who was targeted by store employees, has stated that she does not want to identify the staff and that her post was to cast humanity and positivity, not shame or injury.

Harriet was shopping at a Superdrug branch in Cornwall when she was sniggered at by two girls working there. She states remarks were made because of her appearance, and because she was wearing shorts. Harriet’s Facebook post regarding the shop employees in the Truro store has since gone viral, being distributed almost 50,000 times across the globe.

Harriet caught the judgments that the workers made about her, regarding her appearance and her shorts. They conversed harsh enough for most people to hear, and it obviously wasn’t the first time that they had laughed and made criticisms about other people, but when they usually do it, the person they’re talking about, probably looks away and is actually feeling really miserable inside.

However, by the expressions on their faces, they were not ready for the huge cheesy grin that Harriet gave them.

Harriet stated, “Just so you know, your words didn’t hurt me.”

The looks that they gave Harriet didn’t bother her either, yet she did feel somewhat disheartened that they deemed it okay to talk about another human being in that way.

They certainly didn’t achieve anything from it, aside from looking a little stupid when they realised Harriet had heard what they had spoken.

Harriet responded, “If somehow you end up reading this, as Cornwall is a very small place, can you be a little bit kinder with your words?

Some people’s skin isn’t as thick as Harriet’s had grown, and the next persons might not be as thick, so in reply to their remarks, Harriet is giving back some love.

Harriet stated, “If you did your own hair and make up for work today, you are both very talented. I could never get my winged liner or my ponytail that perfect!

Not everyone out there is perfect, but the thought that somebody else could or would punish them for being different from the idea that being perfect is the norm is completely absurd. We don’t exist in a perfect society, and if we were all identical, it would be quite dull.

People’s views towards being perfect is a matter of politics, a notion of driving people to turn on one another, and people chose to act upon this idea and to stoop so low as to harass other people and make them miserable.

It’s a sport, victimising people that are less wealthy, or people who are happy in the clothes that they wear. Our clothes are just a suit of armour, some people dress to wow, some people dress for comfort, some people just don’t worry how they look, but they’re happy nevertheless, and there are those that just are not moneyed enough to dress that nice, but that’s what makes us distinctive.

Furthermore, we should not be abused for the way we want to attire ourselves, that’s our prerogative, not everyone else’s!.

Pokémon Go Becomes Global

 

Office-April-Fool-Pranks

An app that started as an April Fools prank has grown into a global event, taking gamers out of the living room and onto the streets as they struggle to apprehend, train and fight Pokémon characters using their mobile telephones.

2759200-nintendo-logo

The percentage value of Nintendo, which controls a third of the Pokémon Company and an undisclosed stake in the game’s developers Niantic, has climbed by 50%, and the announcement of the amusement in other nations, comprising the United Kingdom, has been put on hold whilst the developers strive to cope with the trade.

When the app is initiated, it displays a map of the region around the opponent, with many positions of interest identified, icons, clock towers and so on. You physically walk up to one of the positions, pointed to in the game as a Pokéstop, then tap a symbol on-screen and you’re compensated with items and experience points.

The game is not just for single opponents, and some places have become centres of Pokémon action. New York’s Central Park, for example, has been running not just with the typical groups of tourists but with opponents monitoring their telephones for nearby Pokémon.

Usually, you wouldn’t go to a desolate alley at 3am, and that shouldn’t change just because an app tells you that you should.

However even though it couldn’t be foretold how strong the game would be, particularly as it began as April Fool’s Day prank, data from the analytics firm SimilarWeb infers that 3% of all Americans initiated the Pokémon Go app last Friday, just imperceptibly below the 3.5% who opened Twitter, and the game has already been installed on more American Android telephones than the dating app Tinder.

com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20162F032Fnexus2cee_PokemonGO2-728x573

A Pokemon Go player in the United Kingdom phoned 999 to report stolen Pokemon. The distress call was initiated at 11:15 BST on Friday, the day after the hit smartphone game was started in the UK.

Pokemon Go may be a pleasant activity. Yet it’s further turning out to be very dangerous. In fact, it’s turning out to be the classic case of why wandering around completely immersed in what’s happening on your smartphone is such a dangerous concept.

If all your friends dived off a cliff, would you too? What if your Pokémon took you there?

Two men in their early 20s plunged a predicted 50 to 90 feet down a cliff in Encinitas, California, on Wednesday afternoon whilst playing Pokémon Go. The men sustained injuries, though the degree of their injuries is not certain.

Pokémon Go is a free-to-play app that gets users up and moving in the physical world to catch fictional pocket monsters identified as Pokémon. The aim is to seize as many of the more than hundred varieties of animated Pokémon as you can.

Clearly, it wasn’t enough that the app advises users to stay aware of surroundings or that warnings posted on a barrier adjacent the cliff stated “No Trespassing” and “Do Not Cross.” When firefighters came to the scene, one of the men was at the base of the cliff whilst the other was three-quarters of the way down and had to be winched up.

Both men were brought to Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla. They were not charged with trespassing.

It’s not worth life or limb since life is too fragile to permit a human being to dive off a cliff just because a game tells us to do so. If a single person thinks that a game should dominate our lives then we are doomed and completely fucked.

This game is not user-friendly since it defines what we do, and how we do it. A game that tells us to track down a Pokemon and so on is a hint that something is very wrong, and I shiver at the idea of what people will be playing on their apps in a subsequent couple of years.

What began as a rather harmless April Fool’s day prank, has turned into a pretty deadly game, of people running about with excitement, seeking to find something that an app on their phone tells them to, and it’s vital to recognize that people are guided by the mind, and the mind drives people to do stupid things.

There are also people on driving lessons, asking their driving instructors to stop the car because there’s a Pokemon that they want to get. Are we actually a race of bumbling fools that are dominated by a single app on our phones?

The Insulting Minister

In case you have just risen from a desert island or a prolonged hibernation, the United Kingdom has a brand-new prime minister, Theresa May, who in turn has elected a brand-new foreign secretary. The guy who will be representing Britain’s affairs overseas is Boris Johnson. Yes, that Boris Johnson, the tousle-haired, barrel-bellied engineer of the UK’s departure from the EU.

island

It’s an appointment that’s been discussed with unusual hysteria around the globe, not least since he has been less than subtle regarding other nations and their leaders before. Some of his opinions, frequently outlined in his newspaper articles, further endanger clashing with his own government’s official position.

On Tony Blair touring Africa, in 2002, Boris Johnson remarked on what a comfort it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is stated that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly since it provides her with unvarying applauding crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.

2701380.main_image

Mr Johnson withdrew his remarks in 2008, throughout his victorious campaign to be mayor of London. Although it’s not the only time he has applied the word “piccaninnies”, a disparaging term for black children.

On the outcomes of colonialism in Uganda in 2002, he announced that if left to their own means, the inhabitants would rely on nothing but the instantaneous carbohydrate satisfaction of the plantain.

On Barack Obama’s ruling to discard a statue of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office in March this year. No one was certain whether the President had himself been involved in the decision. Some stated it was a reproach to Britain. Some said that it was a representation of the part-Kenyan President’s genetic aversion of the British empire, of which Churchill had been such a passionate supporter.

1376580_10151878817796749_162570700_n

Earlier this year, Turkey launched for the prosecution of a German comic who wrote an offensive verse about President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In reply, the British publication The Spectator ran a contest inviting readers to present an adverse composition about Mr Erdogan, a contest that was secured by Mr Johnson.

Whilst we can’t publish the verse in full, you can see it here, suffice to say, it includes an inventive verse for “Ankara”. Mr Johnson has Turkish heritage, but that is what he’s been warned against exploiting.

Pro-government newspaper reporter Selim Atala tweeted: “Dear @BorisJohnson I understand you need well-versed apologies in Turkish. I can assist you with that. PS: Turkish roots-card won’t work.”

Following Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops, supported by Russian troops, reclaimed the antiquated township of Palmyra from the self-styled Islamic State group, Mr Johnson was impertinent in his praise. He lettered that “any sane person should feel a sense of satisfaction at what Assad’s troops have accomplished”, however, said that Assad was a monster, a dictator.

_86241400_gettyimages-464017351

In a post last December, Mr Johnson likened Vladimir Putin to Dobby the House Elf, the Harry Potter persona. Whilst criticising Mr Putin, he has further boosted his position in Russia and called for more co-operation with Moscow.

Vladimir_Putin_-_2006

Mr Johnson’s forerunner as foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, had criticised Russia for targeting civilians by shelling hospitals and schools in Syria. In May, Mr Johnson further challenged the EU’s part in the struggle in eastern Ukraine, where Russia is publicly cited of supporting the radicals who dominate much of the territory.

phil_1783078b

If you want an illustration of EU foreign policymaking on the hoof and the EU’s pretensions to managing a defence system that has created real trouble, then look at what has occurred in the Ukraine, he informed journalists.

On Thursday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated he hoped Mr Johnson’s office would motion a fresh start for UK-Russia relations.
Reminded of Mr Johnson’s remarks, Mr Peskov replied: “The weight of his current position will certainly, probably, provoke a different kind of rhetoric of a more diplomatic character.”

Boris and Japan, visiting a country on a trade stay and reacting by forcibly crushing a 10-year-old boy is maybe not discretion at its greatest.

Boris and the US, his current position will unavoidably take him to face leaders in the land of his birth, and to deal with its subsequent president. Only one obstacle there, depending on who wins this vote in November.

Boris on Hillary Clinton, he stated that she’s got coloured blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue gaze, like a sadistic attendant in a mental hospital.

Hillary-Clinton-chin-Getty-640x480

Boris on Donald Trump, he announced that he was genuinely troubled that he could be president, and Mr Johnson stated in March. That he was in New York and some cameramen were attempting to take a photo of him and a girl strolled down the pavement towards him and she stopped and she responded, ‘Gee, is that Trump?’

He’s further accused Mr Trump of being out of his mind and of possessing stupefying ignorance.

Boris on Iran, in a 2006 editorial, he stated he backed Iran having the nuclear bomb, declaring it was the only sure-fire means of defending his nation, and his wretched huddled constituents, from the occurrence of an invasion by America.

While he admits this was at a time when the United States was battling two wars, it’s fair to state Mr Johnson’s view here is idiosyncratic.

Boris on Papua New Guinea and some things never change. In 2006, the Labour party was still in the midst of another leadership disaster. Furthermore, Boris was repeatedly atoning for further adverse remarks, this time in connection to Labour’s struggles.

He wrote, for 10 years we in the Tory Party have become used to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing, and so it is with a happy surprise that we view as the insanity overwhelms the Labour Party. Papua New Guinea’s High Commissioner in London was not laughing – I bet he wasn’t.

And what Boris is like abroad. Staff at the Foreign Office may have their hands full if one report is something to go by. Foreign Office workers had to pick up a hotel bar tab, stop Mr Johnson from driving a sports car out of a showroom and plan last-minute tours when the mayor of London travelled to Erbil, in the semi-autonomous quarter of Iraqi Kurdistan, in January 2015, the FT announced.

Whilst his stay did lead to further ventures struck in Kurdistan, it reportedly proved a diplomatic problem. At one point, the FT declared, Mr Johnson insisted on visiting the front line in the struggle facing IS.

Whilst Boris Johnson promotes the bumbling fool image, he does this skillfully to evade liability for his terrible performance, and he’s outstanding performing on comedy programs, but not in the world’s spotlight.

Mr Johnson was the most notable politician in the Leave campaign, which promoted for a British departure from the EU in last month’s election.

His post as foreign secretary, the UK’s prime representative, has been met with some shock by the world press, with papers mentioning his chronicle of faux pas.

Mr Johnson declared he was truly humbled by his latest position.
He announced there was a huge opportunity in this country to make a vast success of our new alliance with Europe and with the world.

Yet, it was stated, that there was no uncertainty that Boris Johnson is an intelligent man, but he has developed the persona of a jester in order to evade accountability for some of the pretty insulting things he has spoken over the years.

This is no longer a man that one would wish to be representing us on the global spotlight. Sequentially, we all know that people will purchase tickets to the show but we don’t want our politics to be a spectacle, and we don’t want fools to be operating major departments.

hignfy_logo

Boris may well be diverting and funny and I do not give a shit if he’s on Have I Got News For You?. Nevertheless, when he’s been granted a more sober part to perform, he must meet that role, and promote himself correctly, and not embarrass himself publically.

Sex, Lies, Video Tapes and Murder

imgres

On the 1st July 1961 a Princess was born, only she didn’t know she was a Princess, all that would be made public a lot later on, or should I suggest that she didn’t know that she was going to be groomed to be a Princess.

Diana Frances Spencer, that was her title, a typical human being with blood coursing through her veins, with so much life and love to give, not just her children, but the whole world.

Of course she was born into the British nobility with royal ancestry, but nonetheless, she was still a human being.

In 1968, Diana was sent to an an all-girls boarding school, and in her premature years she did not glow academically and was moved to a school in Kent, where she was considered a poor student, and where she failed all of her O-levels twice.

At the age of 17, Diana got her first job as a nanny for Alexandra, the daughter of Major Jeremy Whitaker.

She next moved to London, and even though she had known the Prince of Wales since her youth, it was an unavoidable turn of events that one day this youthful bashful girl, who they thought was that unintelligent that she would ultimately do as she was told and keep her mouth shut, was to one day in prison the hearts of millions by doing precisely what the Royal’s did not want her to do.

The engagement of Diana Spencer and the Prince of Wales became lawful on the 24th February 1981. Following their engagement, Diana left her appointment as a kindergarten teacher and moved to Clarence House. Twenty years old Diana became the Princess of Wales when she married the Prince on the 29th July 1981 at St Paul’s Cathedral.

url

Even though they stated that it was the fairytale wedding, which was viewed by worldwide television spectators, and millions scored the streets to grab a brief look at the bride, it certainly wasn’t a fairytale marriage.

In October 1995, Diana, Princess of Wales inscribed a letter to her butler, prophesying her own brutal demise. In the letter, she stated that her husband was designing a misadventure in her car. Break failure and a serious head wound.

In September 1997, Diana’s interment was held in Westminster Abbey where, on April 29th, 2011, her son William married Kate Middleton. William demanded that he and Kate were married at Westminster Abbey, and not St Paul’s Cathedral where his parents were married.

When William proposed to Kate, he as well gave her his mother’s engagement ring from her ill-fated, passionless marriage to Prince Charles. It was William’s way to ensure that his mother Diana did not miss out on the day.

gty_prince_william_kate_middleton_wedding_day_jc_150428_4x3_992

In 1997, the demise of the Princess and her lover broke the world. Ten years later it leads to the longest most costly, and the most shocking inquest in British legal history and hundreds of witnesses were called. Nevertheless, some stories are never supposed to be told, and some can only be told as fairy tales.

The web is and is always going to be a worldwide toilet, a blend of veracity, fabrications, lunacy and comedy, and we perceived its capability and insanity when extracts from a new film were exuded onto Youtube, and snatched by US conspiracy theorists, who instantly began asserting that the CIA had killed Princess Diana, thereby permitting others to dismiss a documentary called ‘Unlawful Killing,’ a documentary as insane.

Ridiculing its critics as mentally ill, footage of Diana recollecting how the royals wanted her sent to a mental establishment, and the inquest coroner, again and again, inquiring the faculties of anyone who wondered if the collision was more than an unfortunate accident.

Here is Mohamed Al Fayed, a man many times outlined by the press as a lunatic, driven nuts by the demise of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having planned the 1997 crash. Nevertheless, this man is of sound mind and humorous, but thwarted that Britain wouldn’t hold an inquest into his son’s death.

Mohamed-Al-Fayed-001

Michael Mansfield QC thought it was unjust as well, and fought for one to take place, which is why the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.

Michael_Mansfield_QC_06

Long before the inquest began, the very compos mentis Mansfield was convinced that there were dubious events encompassing the collision, and indications of a cover-up by the authorities.

As the inquest of Diana drew near, it was found in British newspapers, some which had run the ‘Was Diana Murdered. It was as well stated that the inquest was an entire waste of time. No objection was raised when effectively all the key French witnesses declined to take part, nor did they find it strange that one senior royal was ordered to appear, even though Diana had specified in a lawyer’s note that the Windsors were planning a misadventure to her car.

Nor did they raise the matter of a possible prejudice when legal activities involving the good character of the royal family were to be heard in the royal courts of justice before a coroner who would have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

In October 1993, a woman wrote a letter to a friend prophesying her own brutal death at the hands of those closest to her. Four years later, she and her partner were dead. The finding of their inquest was unlawful killing, nevertheless, it wasn’t their inquest since it was the inquest of Diana the prince of wales. Her significant other was Dodi Fayed, however, he wasn’t in fact referred to that much.

Every principal UK broadcaster was asked to commission a Television documentary about the inquest, however, they declined to even think about such a proposal, so Keith Allen and Associated Rediffusion started filming and financing it themselves.

Shortly before the inquest started, Mohamed Al Fayed tendered to invest in the program, so they could make a feature-length cinema documentary instead. They agreed, on condition that they reported events in the way they saw them, and the deal was struck.

Unlawful Killing is not the conspiracy prior to the crash, but a provable conspiracy following the crash. A conspiracy arranged not by a single cunning arch-fiend, but collectively by the British institution. Judges, lawyers, politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors, all of whom had been scheduled to their positions because they were a safe pair of hands.

Just as compass needles all point north without being told to, so these people instinctively know what is expected of them when the state’s interests are under threat, and they act accordingly, quietly suppressing uncomfortable evidence or undermining the credibility of witnesses who’s evidence contradicts the official narrative.

Over a 100 notable witnesses were not called to the inquest or declined to appear. Blood tests supposedly showing the intoxication of the driver Henri Paul were considered biologically unexplainable by a toxicologist. A British crash specialist found that Diana’s seat belt had not been working, and so on.

Curiously of all was the press reportage of the verdict. Inquest substantiation showed conclusively that the crash was due to an unknown white Fiat Uno, and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were unquestionably not paparazzi because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the collision.

The jury accepted this, bringing in a decision of unlawful killing by unidentified following vehicles, yet inside of seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had held the paparazzi responsible, and the rest of the press meekly followed suit. Which is why, three years on, hardly anyone registers what the jury’s troubling findings really were.

SAS assassins on motorbikes flocked around Princess Diana’s crashed car to finish her off. It was asserted on the 4th October. It’s believed a team of Special Forces soldiers camouflaged as press paparazzi had trailed her, and they were first to the stricken car after the crash in a Paris road tunnel to make certain that she did not remain alive.

However, they made one major error throughout their assignment. They rode heavy duty motorcycles, rather than the lightweight scooters that were favoured by the Paris paparazzi at the time.

A fair amount of years have been spent investigating Diana’s puzzling demise, and these investigations should be a part of Scotland yards investigations into the 1997 car crash.

A former member of the SAS, known as soldier N, maintains Diana was assassinated in an establishment conspiracy for fear she would threaten the monarchy by getting married to Dodi Fayed, 42, or even worse, becoming pregnant by him.

S.A.S_emblem.svg

There was a group of motorcyclists, and they were spotted by quite a few onlookers in the space separating the place de la Concorde and the alma tunnel where the collision happened. These motorcyclists were riding heavy machines, large motorbikes.

It’s been shown that these motorcyclists were not paparazzi since the paparazzi were all accounted for and were way behind because they were on scooters. So, the question is, who was on these motorbikes, and is it feasible that M16 employed SAS employees to ride on those motorbikes?

paparazzi-berlin-terry-r

One man is certain that SAS men were at hand to make sure Diana’s injuries were not survivable, as they proved to be. It was equally well believed that three senior M16 officers moved to Paris shortly prior to the crash to organise the operation.

Together with the assertions of ex-SAS sniper Soldier N are a development in working out the conundrum. Soldier N was examined by Scotland Yard after he informed his wife that security forces caused the collision by shining a bright light into the eye’s of Diana’s driver Henri Paul, however, former Royal Protection officers maintain that Diana’s death was just a catastrophic misadventure.

hqdefault

Ever since the demise of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi’s father, publicly cited the British establishment of ordering their killing and awning it up later on. In September 2011, the UK Police got a letter from the former mother in law of an undisclosed SAS sniper, acknowledged only as Soldier N, who bragged to his wife that his unit ordered Princess Diana’s death.

url

Shortly prior to her death, Diana wrote a chilling letter to her former butler Paul Burrell saying she had crossed the threshold of the most treacherous stage of her life, and she talked of a conspiracy to interfere with the brakes of her car to cause a crash, and serious head injury.

article-2248045-030DB7E1000005DC-724_636x459

The mother of Diana’s driver, Gisele, 83, said:

“We believe there was a plot to kill the Princess. We know in our hearts that our son was murdered and we still live in hope that one day the truth will be known. ”

Agonised by fears of an assassination, Diana as well appeared to foretell her own demise in the course of a private meeting with the late Lord Mishcon in 1995, and subsequently, he wrote an aide memoir of the discussion.

Part of it says:

“Efforts would be made if not to get rid of her, be it by some accident in her car, such as pre-prepared brake failure or whatever, at least to see she was so injured as to be declared unbalanced.”

She was certain there was a collusion going on, and Princess Diana was also keeping a journal in which she wrote about the carnal affairs of the British Monarchy. The case history she was putting together was powerful material, but it also directly jeopardised the monarchy.

It comprised what Charles liked in bed, women he had affairs with, and what he got up to with Camilla, and there are also pieces about senior royals and male servants, and the royal was reportedly accused of being found in bed with one of his servants, and this be one of the main reasons why Princess Diana was murdered.

Writer Brian Watson maintains that he was presented with threats on him and his family’s life, after asserting Princess Diana’s deadly crash was caused by hitmen, and prior to making his speculation public, he received a phone call threat:

“Drop the idea if you value your family’s life. ”

ext

Following a rigorous investigation, he reached the conclusion that Diana’s Mercedes was guided into the 13th column support of the Paris tunnel, with the use of a remote control device. He is confident that the hitmen followed Diana’s motor vehicle in a white Fiat Uno, which was spotted by numerous eye witnesses, however, the Fiat Uno was never found by authorities.

Mr Watson now fears for his life and divulges that he may have been too close to the truth.

Diana said that you always believe you’re ready for everything and that you have the understanding of what’s going to happen to you, and even though she felt discouraged at the prospect at the time, she did, in fact, feel she would have had the support of her husband to be.

She believed that like any marriage, especially when you have divorced parents, that you want to try even harder to make it work because you wouldn’t want to fall back into that pattern you’ve seen happen to your own family.

She despairingly wanted her marriage to work because she desperately loved her husband, and she wanted to share everything with him, and at the time she thought they made a really good team. She wasn’t deterred by her duties that the role generated, to Diana it was a challenge.

Becoming Queen was never at the front of her mind when she married Charles, but the most intimidating facet was the press scrutiny because she was informed that when they got engaged that the media would go silently, and they didn’t, and then when she married Charles she was notified they would go in silence and they didn’t, and then of course, it started to centre very much on Diana, and she appeared to be on the front of the newspaper every single day, which to Diana was a really isolating experience, and the higher the media placed her, the bigger the fall, and she was very conscious of that.

It took Diana a very long time to comprehend why people were so fascinated by her. Nevertheless, she assumed it was because Charles had done a lot of magnificent work leading up to their marriage and their relationship.

Nonetheless, over the years she then saw herself as a superior commodity that sat on a shelf and sold well, and people were making a large amount of money from her – She was the fairytale story that everyone wanted to work.

And so it was, really isolating, however, it was a situation that Diana couldn’t gratify feeling sorry for herself, she either had to become submerged or swim to the surface, and she had to master that exceedingly quickly.

So, she swam, and she knew she had to do it, however, it almost finished her off there and then.  Nevertheless, she became aware of the effect that it had on her, and she had to sort herself out. Immediately, she realised she was a different person, and she became conscious of the sense of responsibility she had, and the level of strength and attentiveness she had to the people, and how challenging that role would be.

Diana found this all extremely formidable because as far as she was concerned she was this plump, portly young girl, and she really couldn’t comprehend the level of attention people had in her.

Diana wasn’t soft-soaped by the press attention because of that attention came a large amount of envy, and a considerable amount of complex situations appeared because of that. Diana was extremely at a loss as to what area she should go into, however, she then found herself being more connected to people who had been spurned by humanity, say with drug abusers, alcoholism, battered this, battered that, and in that amphitheatre, she appeared to have an empathy.

Diana had admiration for the integrity she found in these people because in hospices when people were terminally ill they’re much more open and more helpless, much more honest than other people, and she was grateful for that.

She said she was fortunate in the fact that she had found a role, and she was extremely conscious of it, and that she loved being with people.

In fact, the Royal Family grew extremely envious of Princess Diana’s role because she had the capacity to make people feel better about themselves when she was around them, and that was her motivation in life.  Nevertheless, what people didn’t perceive is that Diana was just a person, a human being just like anybody else, with idea’s and feelings.

Nonetheless, her life was just like an imprisonment, and living inside the Royal Family had no freedom at all. Her duties came with disconnection, particularly when it came to Charles. Diana and Charles’ marriage fell apart in the early 1990’s, and they’d already been seeing less and less of each other for years.

However, Charles’ marriage to Diana was a marriage of expedience, and Diana was just a baby-maker to the Royal’s so that they could produce more successors to the thrown, but they done it in the guidelines of the law, and found Charles’ a wife, when they already knew he had a secret lover.

They both alternated amid the two royal homes. Kensington Palace in London, and their country residence in Highgrove, and they kept their matrimonial difficulties off the record at first, however, after the press found out, it became a public scandal.

Both the Prince and Princess of Wales supposedly talked to the media via friends, each condemning the other for the marriage’s demise.  Diana said she found Charles’ unsupportive and unfeeling to her needs.  Of course, this was the case because Charles’ never loved Diana, she was a means to an end.

Charles’ stated that he found her needy and emotionally unstable and that her bulimia started as early as the first year into the marriage. This was a 20 something-year-old girl, hurled into a situation that she had no concept of, and she was never in fact brought up as a royal, and having royal blood does not instantly mean that you know what you’re doing as soon as you set foot on the royal steps. And of course Charles’, there was your affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles.  So, obviously with Diana being so needy and emotionally unstable, that made Charles’ fall into the arms of another woman, no of course not, it was just his exoneration to clear his name.

Charles’ was said to have terminated his old pre-conjugal affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles, but of course it never actually ended at all, and what attaches insult to injury is the royal house knew about it and brushed it under the rug.

Prince+Charles+Camilla+Attend+Royal+Variety+yezNzUpgqFXx

There were three people in that marriage, and it was starting to get a bit overcrowded, and while she held Camilla responsible for their matrimonial problems, at some point Diana began to believe that Charles’ was having other affairs, and in October 1993 Diana wrote to a confidant that she thought Charles’ was now in love with Tiggy Legge-Burke and hoped to marry her.

Tiggy Legge-Burke had been employed by Prince Charles as a youthful companion for his sons while they were in his charge, and Diana was very irritated by Tiggy, and her association with her young sons, however, Diana also confirmed her own extramarital affair with horse riding mentor James Hewitt.

He had at the outset been sent for to instruct William and Harry, however, as the association developed, Diana herself mustered the bravery to beat her prepubescent dread of riding.  Diana’s affair with James Hewitt began in 1987, and it lasted 5 years, however, it began to cool down when Hewitt was sent off to Germany in 1989 and served in the Gulf War in 1991.

103763-004-80C7D637

Contrary to gossip, James Hewitt repudiates being Prince Harry’s actual father, and Prince Harry was just a small child when Hewitt and Diana first met, so it would be out of the question for James Hewitt being Harry’s father, and granted they do look very much the same, nevertheless, if you look in depth at Diana’s bloodline, the Spencer’s, Harry looks the spitting likeness of them all.

james-hewitt_1761566b

Following Diana’s death, James Hewitt published books quoting specifics about their sexual relationship, and conveyed intent to sell her love letters – He certainly wasn’t in it for the cash, was he?

Even though Charles and Diana did their best to protect their sons from matrimonial strife, Harry was a very responsive child, and reacted to the ambience of situations, suffering lengthy and exhausting screaming fits that could only be calmed by his sibling William.

When his parents eventually made it public on their separation in 1992, it was Harry, then 8 years old, who begged, again and again, to know if there was anything he could do to make them both happy again. This is not uncommon in children where their parents separate, and it’s important to keep in mind that however you as an adult comprehend or experience the situation. Children see and experience it differently.

No matter what their age, children have a restricted capacity to comprehend what’s happening throughout their parent’s separation. That doesn’t stop them, however, from trying to figure out the larger picture, and younger children see things from their own viewpoint, that is, they see themselves as the foundation of events.

This is why younger children frequently hold themselves responsible or create fictional grounds for their parents’ separation or divorce, and are too frightened to tell anyone. They end up convincing themselves they are the only ones in the world who feels this way.

In December 1995, prompted by a Panorama interview, and to end the intolerable national speculation and allegations, the Queen put forward to Charles and Diana that they should get divorced. While Charles consented to this right away, it took Diana until February 1996 to agree to the divorce, discussing terms of the divorce along the way.

The divorce was completed on August 28, 1996, the day Diana told her confidant that it was the unhappiest day of her life.

Diana was given a lump sum settlement of about £17 million and had a right to keep her jewellery. She was no longer to be addressed as HRH, however, was permitted to keep her title as the Princess of Wales. As the mother of William and Harry, who they decided to raise together, she was as well allowed to live in Kensington Palace until they came of age.

If there was one thing that Diana was excellent at, was her capacity to care for people, and after her divorce, she centred her energy on a number of different non-profit organisations, and her prizewinning causes normally involved the most deprived, and the neglected.

In 1997, Princess Diana started a love affair with Dodi Al-Fayed, the son of the billionaire entrepreneur Mohammed Al-Fayed. In July 1997, Mohamed had summoned his son, Diana, William and Harry on a Mediterranean boat trip on his opulent yacht, where Dodi and Diana hit it off.

They were both divorcees, and a number of weeks later. Dodi and Diana holidayed in St. Tropez, where British paparazzi followed the pair to the south of France, taking snap shots of them canoodling and embracing on yacht decks and villa porches.

Diana was acquainted of the paparazzi’s existence, however, continued to amuse herself with the entertainment, and some were convinced that she was out to display to the world, including her ex-lover Hasnat Khan that she was having a jolly good time.

In August 1997, Dodi and Diana set sail for Sardinia, and the paparazzi followed, then the 30th August, they took a plane to Paris and had dinner at the Ritz, which is owned by Dodi’s father. Soon after midnight, trying to elude the skulking paparazzi, the pair escaped from the hotel’s backdoor and got into a Mercedes.

Inside the vehicle were chauffeur Henri Paul and the bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones. A group of paparazzi pursued the Mercedes down the Palace de la Concorde, and into the underground passage of Pont de l’Alma. Racing at 180km per hour, even though, the speed limit was 80km per hour, seemingly drunk Henri Paul smashed the Mercedes into the tunnel’s 13th pillar.

news-graphics-2007-_652903a

Not one of the four in the car were wearing a seat belt, and Dodi and Henri Paul died on the spot, however, Diana and the bodyguard were still breathing, and a doctor who was an eyewitness to the collision came to give first aid, and an ambulance appeared soon after, nevertheless, it would take an hour before Diana could be pulled out of the wreckage.

At 1.30am of August 31st. Princess Diana was brought into La Pitié-Salpêtriére Hospital, where they found that she was losing blood massively and internally, and attempted prolonged resuscitation endeavours, including an inner cardiac massage.

Eventually, Princess Diana was declared dead at 4.00am Paris time, as the world woke up to the horrifying announcement that Princess Diana was dead.

Prince Charles was accompanied by Diana’s sisters Sarah and Jane, who travelled to Paris to bring Diana’s body home. But the Queen and the Duke drove to their customary Sunday service that morning, where strangely enough Diana’s name was not once made reference to.

The public soon accused the Royal family of their lack of emotions, however, in the meantime, the world grieved for the demise of Princess Diana, which had an intense effect on the British public, as well as people in other countries.

It led to a groundbreaking rush of sadness and sympathy, and over 1 million bouquets of flowers were set down at Buckingham Palace.

Diana’s memorial on September 6, 1997, was observed by millions globally, and on the four mile ride from Kensington Palace to Westminster Abbey, Diana’s coffin was followed by her sons William and Harry, as well as Prince Charles, Prince Philip, her brother Charles, and five representatives from each of the 110 non-profit organisations she had supported.

The church service was attended by ministerial figures and some very famous people.

Charles, Diana’s sibling, gave this distinguished speech in the course of the service, where he accused the paparazzi of her demise, and pledged to look after her children. It was a disturbing bon voyage to the unique, the complex, remarkable Diana, whose allure, both internally and externally, will never be doused from peoples minds.

What would Princess Diana do if she were living today? And I’m certain a fair amount of people in all probability imagine the same thing because so many rumours were lost when Lady Diana, the Queen of People’s Hearts, with her bathing suits, short haircuts, who was the most compassionate person, but not in an eerie, frightening self-righteous way died, or was she killed?

Everything that we’ve heard and read in the tabloids neighbouring Diana’s demise appears without bias, an open and shut case. High speeds, inebriated chauffeur, a gloomy underground passage, a car collision. Paris in the 1990’s, but stop there, why would Diana and her incredibly rich lover get into a Mercedes with a markedly drunken driver?

Paul’s blood alcohol level was set at three times the French legal limit. The paparazzi giving chase at astronomical speeds, what’s this, a Bond film? Why weren’t Diana and Dodi wearing seat belts? Were the seat belts compromised?

What about those vehicles that retreated from the scene, never to be heard from again? And why was Diana’s body embalmed so swiftly? Was it to conceal the reality that she was expecting a baby with Dodi Fayed? All this evidence pointed to something ominous.

And by something sinister, we’re talking about the Royal family, because if anyone was out to get Diana, it was them. She had been a thorn in their side for years, skimpily educated, as one correspondent politely put it, media hungry, and at the nucleus of a humiliating divorce, following 15 years of matrimony, from Prince Charles, who married Diana in spite of his never ending devotion to his ex-lover Camilla Parker-Bowles.

However, in spite of everything, the Royals’ pursed their lips when it came to Diana, she was forevermore theirs as the matriarch of William Windsor, who would one day be king and little Harry.

There are two participating opinions as to why the Royals would have wanted Diana gone. The first is related to Dodi Al-Fayed, the extremely wealthy man that Diana had just begun dating before they were joined together in internal hellfire.

The offspring of Egyptian billionaire Mohammed Al-Fayed, who owned the English department store Harrods, and Dodi worked as a film producer but appeared mainly to party and squander his father’s finances. So, it’s strange that the Royals supposedly had a problem with him, because that’s essentially their technique, however, they did have a problem, but can you guess why?

If your response was because he was a Muslim, you’re right. Gossip was plentiful, and it was said that the love affair between Diana and Dodi was hotting up at an extremely swift rate and that Diana was pregnant with Dodi’s baby, and the pair were making preparations to get engaged.

Conspiracy theorists put forward that the Royal family would simply fall apart like a teacake at the inclusion of an Egyptian Muslim, or more tactfully put, a non-Christian, into their fold, and would sooner kill the pregnant couple and their embryonic child in cold blood, but make it look like an unfortunate accident, you know, for appearances.

The other hypothesis involves Prince Charles, our George W. Bush of the East. Charles did not come out looking good from the Diana divorce, not only because he is an unusually unattractive man, but because of the extremely grubby and creepy phone tete-ta-tetes between Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles that were leaked to the British press when Charles told Camilla that he wanted to be her tampon.

Anyhow, everybody knew all along that Charles had been in love with Camilla, and would in all likelihood marry her when Diana was out of the picture, however, that was the difficult situation. Even though they had divorced, Diana wasn’t getting out of the picture.

Their divorce had made her more well-liked than ever before, and she was still the Queen of People’s Hearts. She was giving remarkable interviews to TV reporters, and she was bringing the world nearer to tranquillity by eliminating land mines in Africa.

And her divorce made her all the more relatable, for now, she was a single mother, and to the everlasting irritation of the Royals, she was the most well liked person in their family, and she was hardly in their family. Nevertheless, Charles wanted to move on, to put a new princess in his life, or duchess, as Camilla eventually became, when they got married in 2005.

Nonetheless, no matter what, Camilla would be hated in Diana’s silhouette. So, as stated by conspiracy theorists, the option was explicit, and disposing of Diana would be a difficult job for the Royals, made a bit undemanding with the state services at their beck and call, including M16, or the CIA of Britain.

She was, after all, a danger to the saintliness of the Royal family, so why not utilise the secret state intelligence service to purge the nation of her? It was practically a patriotic venture.

As the conjecture goes, in addition to the engagement of headstrong and intoxicated Henri Paul, and a thrum of rowdy paparazzi, there were a lot of mystery vehicles connected to the collision, some of which were never located.

Evidence proposes these vehicles were Diana’s verifiable downfall, one of them, a white Fiat Uno, which made contact with Paul’s Mercedes prior to it collision in the underground passage that momentous night. Finally thrusting it toward its demise.

Were these cars tools of the M16? French police zeroed in on the motorist of the Fiat Uno in 1998, however, he took his own life in 2000, where his body was discovered in a burnt-out BMW in the French countryside, with a gunshot lesion to his head.

The hunt for answers in Diana’s demise is not a fertile one, and you can accept the answer that it was plainly an accident, or you can think like a Royal, that Diana was the most adored woman in the world at the time of her death.

She would only become more strong with Dodi Fayed’s money and child, both of which would blemish the structure of the Windsor tapestry. How could anybody move on with their lives? The well-being of the Royal family, the nations stabiliser, stretching back hundreds of years through various worldwide disasters, had to be thought about.

What was the most convenient choice?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a call to action to the people of Britain, saying that the following the killing of their cherished Princess Diana 18 years ago, the country must bring legal proceedings against the Royal family following undeniable evidence that has materialised that they were accountable for her murder.

poutine

In the course of a ceremonious Christmas luncheon at the Kremlin, Putin accused Queen Elizabeth, the late Queen Mother, Prince Philip, and Prince Charles of ordering the killing of Princess Diana by means of M16 envoys in Paris. He stated that after talking with Elton John on the phone, he was privy to indisputable proof that the Royal family had blood on their hands.

Throughout a casual and reflective talk, Putin informed a select group of colleagues and respected state approved reporters that Diana’s savage murder brought him unfathomably to tears at the time in 1997 and that he knew deep down that her demise was due to foul play.

Putin, who pledges to demolish the Illuminati in 2016, stated that the departed and exceptional Princess Diana was a thorn in the side of the dishonest British institution, and served as a continual danger to their way of life owing to the reality that she knew way too much about what the Illuminati had in store for mankind.

maxresdefault

Holding back the tears, Putin stood up at the table with a glass of Vodka raised, and declared that Diana was about to go on the world’s stage and tell an extremely horrifying truth, and he said she now knew the truth and was ready to let the world know as well.

He stated, that the person sitting in Buckingham palace isn’t some guiltless wrinkly old primate, that she is wicked in a human form, and that the whole decaying family needs to be got rid of.

According to one of the reporters in attendance, the gathering broke out into impulsive clapping at the man they have affectionately nicknamed, the Illuminati Killer in Moscow.

After instituting a theme with a hint that Martine Monteil, the head of the Paris police investigation team was looking into the case as an assassination case, and that the M15 was a suspect. The centre of the story was an exclusive interview with Glyn Jones, a former member of the elite military unit that observed Diana from 1985-1989 on orders from the MI5.

FR0139006

When Das Neue questioned Jones about his 1985-1989 assignment, he tells that he was with the Royal Marines, then, and was operating upon instructions coming from MI5.

The occupation of his team was not to spy on members of the Royal Family, and foreign agencies informed the MI5 at that time, that there was a threat to Diana.  That is why she was surveilled, and that implied that they would have had to assassinate her if they were not able to stop an abduction.

The principle objective of the team was to safeguard the Royal House, Prince William, the future King, and the Anglican Church.  All of that was threatened by Diana’s so called poor behaviour, and Jones declared, when Das Neue questioned whether the drunken chauffeur, Henri Paul, didn’t play a part in the unfortunate accident, Jones stated that in the end, it was a motive.

However, why did this tragedy happen, in the first place?  Why was the French police not able to single out the two men, that stood on the overpass over the underground passage, who was blazing shots on the vehicle?  Two shots were fired at the tires.

So far, this has not been made public, they are attempting to cover it up, and Jones declared that traces of the bullets would not as a consequence be found, since this would be contingent on the gradient at which the shots strike, this can scarcely be scrutinised, if the tire is torn into bits.

This, at least, is how it’s done in anti-terror measures in Northern Ireland when an outside implication is to be covered up.  Jones stated that it is not French sloppiness which stops an actual inquiry in Paris, but that it rather suggests that the French secret service is co-operating with the British secret service.

There are close contacts, and it would not be in the interest of the French government to let such things get out to the public, and the discussion was accompanied by a receptacle, which described how the sniper assault on Diana’s car could have happened.

First of all, the British SAS is provided with a remarkable gun, the Five-Seven, which is manufactured by the French firm, FN Herstal.  This is an ultra-light weapon, which works like a heavy firearm, nevertheless, it’s bullets can penetrate through steel and bulletproof vests, from 200 meters away.

These unique bullets, only have a mass of 2 grams each, leaving no evident tracks in the target, and weapons specialist Bernard Sacrez described to Das Neue that with this weapon, you can slice the tires of a car as if a razor blade was used, and no tracks of the ammunition can be found, since the 2 gram bullet dismantles totally, afterwards.

Al Fayed’s security team comprised 8 former SAS agents, and Dodi’s bodyguard Alexander Winfield was one of them, and he changed over shifts with Trevor Rees-Jones, the bodyguard that survived that night.  Glyn Jones declared that it looked like an orchestration because the drivers also changed over shifts that night.

There was a cargo of discussions with a dozen well-placed sources and witnesses in Paris and London, EIR had brought together the most all-inclusive account, yet to be brought to print, of the occurrences August 31, 1997, surrounding the killing of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul.

While numerous key uncertainties continue to exist and are unresolved, one deciding reality appears from the gathered testimony.  The French authorities had systematically stifled evidence, bullied and silenced key witnesses, incompetently mishandled the most essential forensic tests, and put a stop to any external organisations, comprising the relatives of the departed, from even raising questions about the behaviour of the French officials handling the investigation.

Furthermore, as one American source well known with the investigation put it, the fiasco of the French emergency medical team at the location of the collision, to get Princess Diana to a hospital where she could have been given life-saving attention, for nearly two hours, would have resulted in manslaughter prosecution of the responsible officials had the crash happened in the United States.

And who were these officials?  As stated by a number of sources, interviewed by EIR, the Paris Police Prefect, police chief, Philippe Massoni, was at the crash location in the underground passage beneath the Place de l’Alma, and, the French interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, was at the Pitie Salpetriere Hospital prior to the arrival of the ambulance conveying Princess Diana.

On November 10th, Tim Luckhurst, the assistant editor of The Scotsman, and the co-author of the comprehensive investigative report on the happenings that emerged in the Place de l’Alma underground passage immediately following the collision established that Massoni was in the tunnel, supervising the rescue and preparatory forensic investigation.

Even the French press announced that, along with Massoni, other top ranking French officials were as well at the underground passage, including Patrick Rioux, chief of the Judiciary Police, and Martine Monteil, head of the Criminal Brigade.

The very existence of these high-ranking French government officials, as a consequence placed them in charge of the so-called rescue attempt.  The evidence can be seen that Princess Diana’s demise was almost unquestionably the direct result of criminal negligence by these French authorities.

Unless the ongoing cover-up by French officials is broken, there is no question that the demise of Princess Diana, Dodi Al-Fayed and Henri Paul will go down in historical events as one more Dreyfus Affair, in which the French government’s bungling of a momentous case led to its undoing.   French authorities made public that they do not think that they would finish their official investigation of the car crash till the end of 1998.

The Ritz Hotel is located between the Place Vendome and Rue Cambon in the heart of Paris.  It’s one of the most stylish hotels in the metropolis.  It’s next door to the Ministry of Justice.  Yet, as a breed of roughly 35 paparazzi congregated in front of the hotel, shortly after Diana and Dodi got back from their aborted attempt to have dinner, there was no move by French police to supply security to the couple, or even place barriers between the couple’s vehicle and the paparazzi, in spite of earlier incidents of hostile paparazzi intimidation of the couple, and the threatening behaviour from the driver of a Peugeot.

Place_Vendôme_-_Panorama

These minimal efforts, which the French authorities chose not to take, could have potentially saved the lives of the three crash victims.  In addition to the widely known infantry of paparazzi, there were other eyes circling the couple during their closing hours.  Virtually all the buildings in the locality of the Ritz Hotel have advanced close circuit television cameras, both inside and outside.

Much of the activity of the paparazzi and the other spectators had been caught on tape.  Yet, the French police, in answer to questions from the relatives of the three victims, again and again, have repudiated the existence of any CCTV film footage or still photographs that shed any light on the events of that night, and sources have provided EIR with some particulars of what those CCTV shots do, in fact, divulge.

Mixed in with the throng of paparazzi, congregated outside the Place Vendome main entrance to the Ritz Hotel, were a lot of other individuals, carefully observing the location.  A number of these spectators were also in the hotel.  At roughly 9.45pm, at about the time that Diana and Dodi were coming back to the Ritz Hotel, two English-speaking men, were trying to appear as if they were paparazzi, they came into the Ritz and sat down at the main lobby bar.  They ordered a few rounds of drinks, and remained in the bar, carefully observing the lobby, till shortly after midnight.  Their names remain undisclosed, however, their dubious presence inside the hotel lobby is significant.

As stated by a number of sources familiar with the particulars of Diana and Dodi’s final hours alive, Dodi Fayed made the decision that he and Princess Diana would leave the hotel by the back entrance at 38 Rue Cambone, in a backup vehicle that was called to the hotel just hours before the momentous last ride.

The idea was to have one of Dodi Fayed’s security guards, Alexander Wigfield, walk out of the front door of the hotel and gesture the drivers of the Mercedes and the Land Rover, which was the trail vehicle, that the couple would be coming down in five minutes.  At that moment, Diana and Dodi got into the back seat of the Mercedes 280-S, driven by Henri Paul, with Dodi’s other regular bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, in the front passenger seat.

As they sped off, the paparazzi were still in front of the hotel unaware to their leaving.  Had this been simply a typical paparazzi photo stakeout. The plan would have probably have been successful, and the couple would have slid off into the night.

Tragically, this was all but a regular stakeout.  The CCTV cameras show that there was a spotter at the back of the hotel, who quickly recognised what was transpiring.  That still unidentified man quickly placed a call on a mobile phone.  A second later, the paparazzi in front of the hotel were on their bikes, following behind the Mercedes.

Sources familiar with these events advise that it should not be assumed that the mobile phone call by the spotter was necessarily placed to one of the paparazzi in front of the hotel.  However, additional activities were allegedly triggered by that call, comprising at least two vehicles that were lying in wait for the Mercedes bordering the Place de L’Alma tunnel.

The failed deception attempt, in fact, turned into a game of opportunity for a vehicular crime, and it was the only time in which Dodi and Diana ever travelled in a car, without a trail car carrying security guards.  As Mercedes 280-S left the back of the Ritz Hotel, several dozens of the paparazzi were subsequently warned of the detour, as they set out in hot pursuance. Even though the developments of the next several seconds are not sufficiently known, the Mercedes sped through the center of Paris, and a half-dozen witnesses have claimed that, as the Mercedes took a right turn onto the Voie Georges Pompidou, a road traveling beside the right bank of the Seine River, roughly two kilometers from the opening of the Place de L’Alma tunnel, there were a number of vehicles and bikes aggressively following behind.

An American businessman from California was driving in a taxi adjacent the Voie George Pompidou, when he noticed the Mercedes 280-S riding past, with two bikes and other vehicles right on its rudder. He informed anchors from NBC Dateline that the Mercedes was moving at a fast, but sustained speed, of about 60 miles per hour, but that there was definitely additional transportation attempting to irritate the Mercedes, as it progressed near the tunnel opening. He additionally recorded that the motorist of the Mercedes seemed to be quite in control of the situation, and gave no indications of being intoxicated.

Brenda Wells, a London-born secretary residing and operating in Paris, informed police that her vehicle was run off the road near the approach to the Place de L’Alma tunnel by a dark coloured Fiat Uno that raced past her in pursuance of the Mercedes. Brenda Wells went missing from her home for many weeks, and there is unusual interest that she had become a prey of foul play.

Mohamed Medjahdi and Souad Mousakkir were driving on the Voie Georges Pompidou at approximately 50 mph in their Citroen, in front of the Mercedes, and Medjahdi reported to Fox TV that he observed two vehicles breeze past the Mercedes, as others were coming up menacingly from behind.

Francois Levy, a retired ship’s captain from Rouen, France, was also riding in front of the Mercedes, as the vehicles came into the tunnel. He contacted lawyers for the Ritz Hotel, who gave his report to the French police.

He said that in his rearview mirror, he noticed the car, the Mercedes in the middle of the tunnel with the motorcycle on its left, trailing forward, and then veering to the right in front of the car.   As the motorcycle swerved and before the vehicle lost direction, there was a burst of brightness, but then he was out of the tunnel and heard, but did not see, the impact.   

He quickly pulled his car over to the kerb, however, his wife said that they should get out of there because she believed it was a terrorist attack. There were two people on the motorbike.

On Sept. 7th, Journal du Dimanche printed accounts with two other eyewitnesses, who asked to remain unidentified. The chief eyewitness reported to the newspaper that the Mercedes was riding on the right hand, shortly before the entrance to the tunnel, led by a dark coloured vehicle, of which make he could not say.

This vehicle definitely was trying to make the Mercedes to brake. The motorist of the Mercedes swerved into the left-hand lane and then entered the tunnel. The bystander stated that his observation was drawn to the scene by the noisy din of the Mercedes’ gears being abruptly reduced.

The other eyewitness questioned by Journal du Dimanche was strolling along the Seine River when he was alarmed by the vibration of a motor droning really powerfully. He stated he noticed a Mercedes driving behind another vehicle, and he thought the reason the Mercedes quickened so abruptly, was tantamount to an attempt to swerve into the left lane and pass that car.

Bernard Dartevelle, the lawyer for the Ritz Hotel, told Associated Press’s Paris reporter, Jocelyn Noveck, on Sept. 8th, that he had been given images of two photos seized by Paris police, that showed chauffeur Henri Paul dazzled by a blinding beam of light. Dartevelle reported the two pictures.  One that sees very clearly the driver dazzled by a flash.

One sees quite plainly the bodyguard at his side, who with a quick movement drops the visor to shield himself from the glare, and one sees quite clearly Princess Diana twisting to look behind the vehicle, and one sees quite clearly the yellow headlight of a motorcycle. Dartevelle continued that the photo taken before the first photo of the collision points the Mercedes taken from quite nearby.   

A motorist, who is perhaps a photographer, and a motorcyclist, also perhaps a photographer, are quite directly involved in this accident.

The combined reports of these witnesses confirm that the Mercedes carrying Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana was under invasion by various vehicles and motorbikes, operating in tandem, at the point that the Mercedes careened off the tunnel columns, hit the right wall of the tunnel, and then smashed headlong into column number 13.

There are suggestions of a blinding beam of light, as illustrated by Dartevelle, and confirmed by other observers. Safety specialists have affirmed that both British and French secret services have produced, and deployed portable lasers, which momentarily dazzle a target, and further, cause abrupt, intense, paralysing injury to the optic nerve.

These anti-personnel lasers, which have been used in Africa, the Balkans, and in the Persian Gulf War, are light and portable, and could easily be used from the back seat of a vehicle. One type of these laser machines generally available in Europe is the size of a fountain pen, and can be purchased for as little as $35.

Such weaponry may have been employed by the attackers. Additional sources reported to EIR that several of the paparazzi carry cameras that are furnished with super-powered flashes, that are able of penetrating bulletproof glass, and dark tinted glass, to photograph riders within marked vehicles.

These flashes give off near blinding beams. Contrary to accounts leaked by the French officials, the Mercedes 280-S that was taking Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana on that last drive, was not bullet proofed. Nor did it have specifically shaded casements.

Was a blinding laser employed in the assault? Or, were other blinding lights used to deliberately incapacitate Henri Paul moments before the fatal collision? These are amongst the mysteries that may never be solved. 

However, further inquiries are being slowly answered, including whether the Mercedes was hit by a different car within the tunnel, just before the collision.  From the time that the first witnesses came forward to speak to the media and the French police, there was news that a dark-coloured vehicle had crashed into the Mercedes a split second before the accident. These statements were in line with all of the witness statements listed above. For two weeks, the French officials leaked account after account to the newspapers, rejecting the notion of a second vehicle as pure nonsense, and downright meddling in their inquiry.

The same day, a different eyewitness, who asked to remain unnamed, said France 2 television, that at that time he noticed two vehicles. One a vehicle of a dark colour that accelerated sharply, and from that instant, the Mercedes, which was going really fast, crashed into the vehicle and lost power.

It would be another two weeks before the French officials eventually agreed that they had, admittedly, found the paint marks of a Fiat Uno on the right side of the mangled Mercedes. They had further discovered pieces of a rear brake light fixture embedded in the front of the Mercedes, and other pieces of a Fiat Uno near the crash locality.

However, no Fiat Uno keeper had come forward to report to the police that he or she had been implicated in the accident, as one would presume an honest person to the collision, to do. Neither has anybody addressed the tabloid newspapers to report that they were almost killed by Diana’s thoughtless driver, and make monetary requests on the Ritz Hotel. The vehicle continues to be missing. The keeper and driver are unknown.

In a sad irony of Inspector Clouseau, the French police, a month following the collision, subsequently started their hunt for the lost Fiat Uno. The belated exploration has been further complicated by a succession of French police leaks, which have scattered further uncertainty about the colour of the lost vehicle.   

The original statements, consistent with all the eyewitness accounts, described the lost Fiat Uno as dark blue. However, subsequent reports, all leaked by the French police, reported the lost vehicle as black, red, and white. French officials are now stating that the hunt for the Fiat Uno, alone, will need the resources of one-fourth of the investigative team of the Paris police, and will take near to one year to finish.

At the time of the accident at the Place de L’ Alma tunnel, London lawyer Gary Hunter was in Paris with his wife. They were in their quarters on the third floor of the Royal Alma Hotel, at 35 Rue Jean Goujon. In an exclusive discussion with EIR on Nov. 12th, Hunter recounted what he heard and observed. At about 12:25 a.m., on Sunday, Aug. 31th, through the open windowpane of his hotel quarters, Hunter heard the noises of the car crash within the tunnel.

_161857_diana300

He went to the window. Hunter, contrary to original reports in the London Sunday Times on Sept. 21th, had no range of view on the tunnel, which was behind the hotel. Nevertheless, he did notice two vehicles turn left, onto Rue Jean Goujon, inside less than two minutes of the collision.

The first vehicle was a dark vehicle, which was promptly followed by a white vehicle, which, he thinks, was a Mercedes. The two vehicles raced past the hotel at breakneck velocity, at nearly reckless momentum.

Hunter said to the Sunday Times that he believed they were moving at 60-70 mph. The two vehicles were racing in tandem, with the white vehicle almost on the bumper of the smaller dark vehicle.  The two vehicles raced up to the corner past the hotel, where there is a traffic loop.

They raced out of view. The abnormal performance of the two vehicles, according to Hunter, made him think it may be connected to the impact noises in the tunnel, and his first observations were that these were people escaping from something.

At that moment, he noticed the two vehicles racing past his hotel, Gary Hunter had no thought that the wreck in the tunnel beneath the Place de L’Alma had involved Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. He did not hear of their deaths until the following day, and, as Hunter explained it to EIR, he and his wife were shattered by the discovery.

On Monday, the Hunters returned to London. By Tuesday A.M., Hunter decided that what he had witnessed may have been important.   He communicated with lawyers for the Al Fayed family. They made an arrangement to convene on Wednesday, which was delayed.

They eventually convened, in London, on Thursday morning, and Gary Hunter told the attorneys what he had heard and observed. The lawyers affirmed to him that his spoken report would be forwarded to the French officials investigating the accident.

Admittedly, on Friday, Sept. 5th, Hunter was called by the Al Fayed lawyers, who reinforced that his statement had been given to the proper French administrators.

Hunter never heard another sound from the French police for weeks. On Sept. 8th, Hunter returned to Paris, where he was programmed to give an interview on NBC-TV. Whilst in Paris, he communicated with the French police and proposed to give them a statement.

They refused to see him. Hunter told EIR that his choice to give an interview to the London Sunday Times was prompted by concern that the French refused to talk to him. Two days following his interview surfaced in the Sunday Times, he got an acknowledgement, of sorts.

The London Evening Standard printed a story, based on unnamed origins in the French investigative squad, stigmatising Hunter’s account as ridiculous. Unnamed administrators were cited as stating that they were bored by the interfering in their inquiry.

It was only following the Fiat Uno account was subsequently confirmed, and Hunter’s comments plucked up by different media, that the French police eventually asked Scotland Yard to take a report from him.

That took place at the end of October.

Gary Hunter was, by no means, the only single extremely reliable, unbiased eyewitness, who was treated shabbily by the French police. Brian Anderson, the California businessman who observed the Mercedes 280-S being hounded by other vehicles and bikes, tried to give a report to the French police. For his pains, he had his passport seized for hours. However, the police never came to take a formal report from him.

Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed both perished immediately in the collision in the Place de L’Alma tunnel. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, positioned in the frontal passenger seat, had buckled his seat belt shortly before the accident. This seemingly spared his life.

Princess Diana also endured the accident. She sustained severe injuries and was bleeding internally, although the first doctor on the scene of the collision thought that she would survive, with proper emergency medical attention.

Dr Frederic Mailliez was riding through the Place de L’Alma and happened to be on the site, just moments following the collision. According to a lengthy news report, printed in the Scotsman on Sept. 29th, Dr Mailliez did not think that Princess Diana’s situation was extreme.

news-graphics-2007-_650795a

He later said to a French medical journal that he believed her life could be spared.   Dr Mailliez was an accomplished emergency medical expert, who served at one time for the SAMU, the French government’s emergency ambulance service, before going to work for a private medical response outfit called SOS Medecins.

Dr Mailliez found Princess Diana lying on the back seat of the Mercedes, according to his statement to The Scotsman. Contrary to accounts leaked by French officials to the newspapers, she was not pinned in the rear compartment. The rear seat of the Mercedes had not been severely damaged in the collision, and there was no difficulty in getting at Diana. The French officials announced these initial fake statements in reply to questions why it had taken an unbelievable one hour and 43 minutes, from the time that the first ambulance arrived at the collision site, to deliver Princess Diana to the hospital four miles away.

Moreover, Romuald Rat, one of the most thuggish of the paparazzi, who was later charged with potential conspiracy in the Mercedes accident, was witnessed by one of the onlookers at the collision site, leaning over Princess Diana as she lay semi-conscious in the back seat of the Mercedes, just before the first emergency rescue team arrived.

url

Dr Mailliez moved Diana’s head to allow her to breathe. He called the emergency hotline to report the particulars of the collision on his car telephone. He was informed that ambulances had now been dispatched to the scene.

He then gave oxygen and assured that Diana was not going to choke to death or swallow her tongue. When SAMU appeared on the scene, Dr Mailliez left, certain that she would be immediately brought to a nearby hospital.

He had now concluded, on the evidence of Princess Diana’s vital signs, and her movements, that she was bleeding internally.  The first doctors to appear with the ambulance and other emergency transportation reached the same conclusion, according to reports given to The Scotsman. One doctor who requested to remain unnamed stated that she was perspiring and her blood pressure had lowered. She had obvious symptoms of internal haemorrhage.

Diana was lying over the back seat of the Mercedes, with most of her body leaning outside the vehicle, when the ambulance appeared, about 15-16 minutes following the accident, according to one of the ambulance crew, who also talked to The Scotsman. She was almost instantly removed from the vehicle.

However, Diana remained at the accident site for another hour, before she was placed in an ambulance and transported, at less than 25 mph, to a hospital on the other side of the Seine River, four miles away. The decision to take Princess Diana to La Pitie Salpetriere Hospital was apparently made by the senior French government officials on the scene, Paris Police Chief Massoni and Interior Minister Chevenement. Massoni was in the tunnel, and Chevenement was now at La Pitie Salpetriere, in telephone communication with the rescue team in the tunnel.

However, there are five additional hospitals adjacent to the accident site, all with excellent emergency skills.  One very important French doctor who practises in emergency response said to EIR, in an exclusive discussion, that Princess Diana should have been taken to the Val de Grace, which is much closer than La Pitie. That is a military hospital.

All plitical figures who is in a car accident or is injured are taken there.  The firemen, who appeared on the scene of the collision, were part of the Army. They undoubtedly notified the Val de Grace, which has the best unit of injury professionals on duty around the clock. Had she been helicoptered her in.  She would have been on the operating block several minutes following being stabilised. This woman was a member of the world’s most important and powerful people. She would usually have been provided special preference and top treatment. She was not.

Not only was Princess Diana not taken to Val de Grace. She was not taken to Cochin Hospital, the Hotel Dieu, Lariboisiere, or the private American Hospital, all of which were closer than La Pitie Salpetriere, and all of which had qualified staff and crisis departments to repair the damaged arteries.

There is not any conceivable reason for why the French emergency workers at the scene waited for longer than an hour to put Princess Diana into the ambulance. There is not any credible reason for why the four-mile journey, through desolate Paris streets, took 43 minutes!

There is definitely no conceivable logic why the ambulance stopped for ten minutes outside the French Natural History Museum, just a few hundred yards from Le Pitie Salpetriere Hospital, as confirmed to both The Scotsman and the British weekly The People!

In a situation where a crash victim has been diagnosed as suffering from internal bleeding, there is only one decent route of action. The victim should be stabilised, and then be rushed to a hospital for surgery. Unless the internal bleeding is arrested, the victim bleeds to death.

This is precisely what occurred to Princess Diana.

What is confusing about the treatment given to Diana is that she was not hospitalised until her health had declined to a significant degree. She underwent a succession of heart attacks in the tunnel and on the way to the hospital and had a huge cardiac arrest inside moments of arriving at La Pitie Salpetriere.

The fact is that she was dead on arrival in the operating theatre, though the surgical crew fought against all the probabilities to awaken her.

No credible evidence has been provided for the delay. The surgical crew at the hospital had a long time in which to plan for the arrival of their victim.

They were in phone contact with the doctors in the tunnel from the very start and were on formal alert from 1 a.m. Diana did not appear till at least one hour later.  Next, the account leaked by the French officials altered, apparently because the results of the blood tests done on chauffeur Henri Paul revealed that he had alcohol levels in his bloodstream three times the allowable limit.

Quickly, the paparazzi were excused, and the whole world media responsibility for the demise of Princess Diana and Dodi changed to the drunk driver, Henri Paul.  In the weeks that ensued the initially leaked post-mortem conclusions, the French officials adorned the story. A purported second post-mortem showed that Paul had been also high on two strong prescript medications, one of which, not coincidentally, was frequently prescribed to confirmed alcoholics. Some weeks later, the French officials leak stated that additional examination showed that Paul had been on a drinking spree for many weeks, preceding to the accident, according to analyses of his hair.

From the outset, there was apparent conflicting data. Colleagues, co-workers, and relations completely opposed the media efforts to describe Paul as a silent, sad addict.  Moreover, Paul had gone for his yearly physical exam, to pass for a restoration of his pilot’s licence, 48 hours before the accident.

He not only passed the physical exam. According to the Doctor who gave the exam, there were no signs of any harm to Paul’s liver, a common sure-fire indication of insobriety. The French post-mortem report further established that Paul’s liver was normal at the time of his passing.

It has been shown that between 10 p.m. and midnight, Paul downed two glasses of Ricards and water at the Ritz Hotel bar. The alcohol content of those drinks was quite tiny. However, for the blood alcohol analyses to have been true, Paul would have had to have gone through three bottles of strong red wine, or a twelve glasses of alcohol, earlier in the day, to have still presented such clear alcohol presence in his blood at 12:25 a.m. on the morning of Aug.31th, at the time of the collision.

Both the doctor who normally did the yearly pilot’s licence harsh physical exams and Paul’s own doctor informed the media that Paul had never been diagnosed as an alcoholic, and had never obtained prescripts for each of the two narcotics supposedly discovered in his bloodstream.

Ultimately, the French police said that there was no account anyplace in France of such prescripts in Henri Paul’s name. However, this did not in any way prevent the ongoing media characterisation of Paul as the drunken motorist.  There is a separate account for this oddity. Postmortem on Paul was either badly botched by total ineptitude, or the results were tampered with. Here are the details as told to EIR. You, the browser, can form your own judgements.

From the time that the French officials began leaking the purported criminological verdicts, that Paul had been racing the Mercedes intoxicated on alcohol and prescript medications, his family began asking that a separate, independent post-mortem be handled.  French officials declined to allow the Paul family to use their own criminological pathologist to handle an objective collection of examinations. In fact, French officials only would free Paul’s body to his family, for a decent funeral, if they acknowledged that the body would be cremated or buried without any more examinations.

Eventually, French officials allowed issuing a duplicate of the recorded outcomes of the initial post-mortem to the relatives of the departed. Two independent teams of well-known criminological pathologists reviewed the written report, and their conclusions were startling.  Dr Peter Vanezis conducted one of the reviews with a co-worker from Lausanne. Dr Vanezis is a well-known British pathologist who holds the Regis Chair of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University. He was exploited by the United Nations in both Bosnia and Rwanda, to conclude whether genocide had happened, following the uncovering of mass graves.

He was the criminological pathologist who discovered that the woman who had become the pretender to the Romanov throne, was a fraud.  Dr Vanezis and his associate spent 12 hours, examining the first post-mortem report. They discovered, first, that the report confirmed that there was no degeneration of Paul’s liver, in itself evidence that the prolonged alcoholic line was fiction. The remainder of the report was a horror fabrication of incompetence, breach of approved procedures and protocols, and pending questions. The staff who performed the analysis simply entertained it as a backyard variety auto collision.

The statement did not identify the temperature at which the body was stored. From the moment it was removed from the vehicle to when the examinations were done. There was not any string of administration given.  Henri Paul’s remains had been pulverised in the collision. His abdomen, heart, and innards had been crushed and ruptured wide. Therefore, the entire breast cavity was seriously contaminated with other body fluids, food debris, and so on, combined collectively with the blood. Under such conditions, it is usual practice to take blood specimens from other members of the body, especially the limbs, which are a long way from the contaminated breast cavity.

However, the first post-mortem statement was just conducted on the blood used from the contaminated breast cavity.  French officials had leaked to the newspapers that there had been two objective post-mortems conducted, and both had shown the same appearance of high numbers of liquor in Paul’s haemoglobin. The statement gave to the families showed that the so-called empirical examinations had been done on the same contaminated blood specimen from the chest, which had been cut in half and given to two separate labs to examine.

Thus, in actuality, there was just one analysis. Furthermore, French officials insisted that a urine specimen had been taken as well. Although the statement conferred no results of urine analyses.  Dr Vanezis and his assistant provided a detailed memorandum, asking all of their concerns about the forensic statement. Their memorandum was transferred along to the judges in the custody of the investigation, Herve Stephan and Marie-Christine Devidal. Dr Vanezis’s statement required answers to a handful or more troubling enigmas he had posed.

The family of Paul and additional victims of the crash required that they are sanctioned to have an objective, external post-mortem done on Paul’s body. The French officials would only allow a French doctor to conduct such an outside analysis, and, not surprisingly, not one qualified French criminological pathologist was prepared to get involved with such an objective examination.

The second team of leading criminological pathologists in Lausanne, Switzerland, in the meantime, had been sent the original criminological report. They formed nearly equal conclusions to those in the Vanezis report. They, too, were appalled over the obvious inadequacy and breach of the most basic procedures by the French government staff.

A third objective review of the initial post-mortem was conducted by a team at St. Georges Hospital in London and their conclusions were identical.  Therefore, at best, the only criminological proof, the only proof period, that revealed Henri Paul to have been drunk on the evening of Aug. 30th, 31th, was inadequate, insofar as it was completely inaccurate.

At worst, it was another case of deliberate subversion and cover up by the French government. Furthermore, this was not the last of the French wrongdoing and misleading.  There are numerous other deliberate untruths that have been reported by the French authorities and dutifully put out by the world media. All of these distortions, taken separately, could be written off as irrelevant. However, taken as a combination, they create a deliberate attempt by the French authorities to cover up evidence, that Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul was the scapegoats of a murder conspiracy.

Given the reality that Princess Diana’s demise was at the hands of the French government, at the greatest plane of the Jospin Socialist Party administration, it should come as no shock that their account of the collision at the Place de L’Alma tunnel, from beginning to end, was a series of distortions.

Here are some of the most outrageous distortions, revealed by the EIR investigative team.

The speedometer showed Henri Paul was driving at a dangerously fast rate. Virtually all news reports in the immediate hours following the accident stated that the speedometer of the Mercedes had been frozen at over 180 kilometres per hour when the first rescue operators and eyewitnesses appeared on the scene.

This evidence was applied to prove that Paul was speeding dangerously at the moment the collision happened. Following the so-called post-mortem results were leaked, indicating that Paul had been intoxicated and high on prescript medications, much of the world media said the case a cut-and-dried case of drunken driving.

In fact, EIR has established that the speedometer of the Mercedes was at zero!

This is compatible with claims by the car’s maker, Daimler-Benz, that when a Mercedes 280-S is in a collision, even a collision at fairly moderate pace, the speedometer will arrest at zero. It is no wonder that the French authorities refused Daimler-Benz’s proposal to send a team of safety technicians to France to help in the crash probe.

Diana was trapped in the back seat. For weeks, the French officials explained the lengthy lag in getting Princess Diana to a hospital with claims that the back section of the car had been crushed, and it needed a long effort by French firefighters and rescue operators to pry her body free from the back seat.

Finally, after a number of early witnesses within the tunnel came forth, the French government was obliged to remove the fabrication, and acknowledge that the back section had not been damaged in the collision.

The Mercedes was a faster, bulletproof vehicle. Original media articles, provided by the French authorities, had identified the Mercedes carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed as the much quicker 600 design. Initial articles further alleged that the car was armoured. In fact, the Mercedes 280-S, a four-cylinder vehicle incompetent of attaining high speeds instantly, had been called up from a supply of vehicles accessible to the Ritz Hotel merely hours before the fateful drive.

EIR has recently learned that the French police have confirmed that the absent Fiat Uno is a turbo design made between 1984 and 1987. This Fiat has a greater acceleration speed than the Mercedes 280-S and a greater head velocity.

This suggests that the Fiat was able of moving and cutting off the Mercedes, and accelerating to avoid severe injury in a crash.

Henri Paul had encouraged the paparazzi, saying, “You won’t catch me tonight.” Initial media coverage, based on leaks from the French government, stated that, as Paul was leaving the Ritz Hotel, he had mocked the paparazzi, yelling, “You won’t catch me tonight.”

In fact, as we set out at great length before, Paul at no time had any communication with any of the paparazzi. The Mercedes left the Ritz Hotel from a back door and there never was any conversation among him and the paparazzi.

The goal of this fairy tale was tantamount to further the notion that Paul was intoxicated and out of control shortly before the collision. CCTV footage, taken from cameras at the Ritz Hotel and from nearby buildings, completely prove EIR’s description of events.

There are not any photos of the pursuit. All along the route that the Mercedes took, from the Ritz Hotel, along the Voie Georges Pompidou, to the entry to the Place de L’Alma tunnel, there are both outside CCTV cameras, and special radar-activated cameras installed by the French police.

If, at any time, the Mercedes or the vehicles and bikes following after it had gone beyond the speed limit, detector cameras should have automatically snapped images. These images should have given the police with a time-sequence account of the closing minutes before the collision.

However, the French authorities have always maintained, through press leaks, and in answer to questions by the families of the departed, that no such images exist. Are we to think that every one of the cameras was either broken or out of film?

However, other motorists, who were passing along the Voie Georges Pompidou shortly before the Mercedes pursuit, were indeed later contacted by French police and told that there were images proving that they were speeding.

Strangely, the French officials further continued to adhere to that none of the external CCTV cameras on any of the structures along the route show anything related to the collision probe.  The paparazzi was nowhere near Henri Paul’s vehicle at the time of the collision. Some reports, based on French administration exposures, declared that the nearest paparazzi were 400 metres behind the Mercedes 280-S at the time the collision took place.

This deception, directed at pinning the whole liability for the collision on the speeding drunken chauffeur Henri Paul, is questioned by the statement of Anderson, Levy, and Wells, as well as half-dozen other witnesses who have asked to remain unnamed.  Henri Paul was not equipped to operate the Mercedes. Paul had received speciality chauffeur instruction from Daimler Benz in Germany. Counter to some French newspapers claims, Paul was not obliged to have any sort of specific chauffeur licence, in order to drive the Mercedes 280-S.

The combined outcome of these lies, all traced back to French government sources, to date, has been a relentless cover-up on the part of the French, who apparently have a great deal to hide.

This blemish on the Royal family is why they have to be examined since they’re now on the hook of mortification, and the reason, everyone knows what they executed.  People will come to their own determinations, but the Royal family has to understand that there are specific laws that they have to endure and killing is not one of them.

We exist by specific expectations, a belief some might call it, but, some don’t see that as doctrine.  It’s legislation that we do not murder another human being, and that legislation says that if we do, we need to be disciplined for it, and this embraces everybody, incorporating the Royal family.

It takes determination to murder another human being, yet, it doesn’t take much backbone if you’re directing somebody else to do it.  You can just hide your head and imagine it wasn’t you that done it, it was just somebody else you directed to do it.

Let’s make it transparent the Queen and Diana did not get on, portraying the deceased Princess of Wales as seriously broken by her childhood and impossible to understand.  The Queen, or anybody else, would never really understand what Princess Diana was about, it would be unfeasible.

One could assume she was seriously wounded by her past and her childhood. It is hard to know. She had several admirable qualities. It must have been extremely hard for the Royal family to deal with the rest.  When reports started to trickle through from Paris to the Royal Family’s Highland retreat at Balmoral during the small hours of August 31st, 1997, that Princess Diana had been involved in a serious automobile accident, the Queen could hardly consider what she was hearing.

At first, it was thought that, although the car accident in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel was serious. Diana had not been killed. According to one eyewitness present, when the Queen heard the initial announcement, she reflected out loud: ‘Someone must have greased the brakes.’ That surprising statement shows something of the unusual and difficult relationship linking her and Diana, a connection brought into visible relief with the printing of never-before-seen images of Diana’s wedding day.

There was an insufficient indication of affection among the two women or even a glimmer of joy on either face, a glimpse, maybe, of their underlying fears and the immeasurable emotional distance between two such differing characters.  So what did the Queen really make of her daughter-in-law?

On September 9th, the Queen surpassed the 63 years and seven months that her great-great-grandmother Victoria was the monarch, making her the longest ruling sovereign in British history. It appears impossible that anything could throw a shadow over her rule.  It is hard now to understand how severely battered the sovereignty was merely 18 years ago when, after years of matrimonial feuding and gossip among the Prince of Wales and his estranged wife, the discovery of Princess Diana’s passing traumatised the nation.

When Lady Diana Spencer first visited Balmoral, aged 19, she beguiled all the Royals and the Monarch particularly. Her father, Viscount Althorp, had served as an equerry to the Queen between 1952 and 1954, and to George VI for the two years before that.  Her matriarch, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a familiar and lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother.

The family resided at Park House on the Sandringham property and the Queen had observed Diana growing up, her elder sibling Sarah was a previous sweetheart of Prince Charles and the other sibling, Jane, was partnered to Robert Fellowes, the Queen’s assistant and later her private secretary.

The Queen remarked to a friend that Diana was one of them, a genuine Royal, and that she was really enamoured of all three of the Spencer girls.  At Balmoral in 1980, Diana married in with the after-dinner pastimes, laughed at Prince Philip’s anecdotes, fell into bogs and got wet, and answered all the right things.

She was delivered affectionately into the imperial circle.  However, what the Monarch did not see was the teenager’s shallowness.  Diana was innocent and not given to see past the moment. By variation, the Queen constantly had one eye on tomorrow, even as a teenager.  When she was told, aged ten, that her uncle, Edward VIII, had renounced and her family, with her father as the current King, must move into Buckingham Palace, she asked at once: ‘What, forever? ’

Diana was charmed by the glamour of her own situation. With a beautiful egg-shaped sapphire on her engagement finger, the same one, of course, now worn by the Duchess of Cambridge, she felt she had, in her words, ‘caught the big fish’.  It was after she discovered herself with a permanent police escort and was residing in the Palace’s former nursery suite on the second floor with all her former liberties reduced that she started to think about the actuality of life as a Princess.

The Queen made a big fuss of her prospective daughter-in-law, attempting to show that she was interested in Diana for her personal qualities and not just for what she represented, as the consort of the successor to the sovereignty.  However, Diana ran out of things to say to her. Naturally shy, she didn’t want to have luncheon on her own with ‘Brenda’, her nickname for the Monarch, taken from the paradoxical publication Private Eye, and made apologies, even creating non-existent friends to bypass the invitations.

The Queen could see the extremely youthful woman was troubled. Yet had no suspicion of her emotional difficulties or understanding of concerns such as bulimia, the eating disease that would torment Diana for years.  The wedding at St Paul’s in July 1981 was a grand event on a scale never witnessed previously, not even for the Queen’s Coronation.

Each detail was intensified beyond imagination, the palace reception ahead the ceremony was the most extravagant in more than half a century, with just about each European royal, as well as America’s First Lady Nancy Reagan, and a float of prime ministers and Commonwealth leaders on the guest list.

On the day itself, a large congregation assembled in the Mall to see Charles and his bride emerge on the balcony. Hearing the cries, Diana announced to her husband: ‘They want us to kiss.’ They did, and the moment was made available by global TV viewers of 700 million.  That night, the Monarch attended a gathering at Claridges, where video screens replayed the vows, seen by the sovereign, the First Lady and Princess Grace of Monaco, placed collectively on a curved sofa.

However in the subsequent months, the Monarch was disturbed by the constant media attention. The Papers just couldn’t get enough of Diana and all other royal interest blanched by example, particularly when knowledge revealed in November of her pregnancy.  Pointedly, throughout that year’s Christmas broadcast, the Queen did not dwell on the wedding celebrations yet singled out what she characterised as a somewhat different scene, a garden party at the Palace for 3,500 guests with disabilities.

Concerned about the fact that Diana was not coping well with all the attention, the Queen instructed her press secretary to ask all Fleet Street’s editors to a meeting.  In an almost bizarre move, she pleaded to them to line in their coverage, talking to them alone or in small groups.  This appeal from the heart worked, although not for long. It didn’t help that Diana disliked any change of focus away from her.

The christening of her first child, Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, for example, fell on the Queen Mother’s 82nd birthday, so that she and not the child were the focus of attention.  Two years later, following a complicated second pregnancy that left her exhausted, emotional and completely miserable, Diana spoke to friends, stating that she was not made for the production line.

The Queen understood, however still believed her daughter-in-law would learn to adjust to royal life, and the Princess’s carefree, casual manner in public, after all, meant her notoriety was unmatched.  In the ensuing years, the Queen would blame herself for not noticing how much pressure the Wales’s marriage was under.

She acknowledged she was not a tactile parent, and similar to several distinguished parents of her generation, she had transferred much of the childcare to nursemaids and her own mother.  Despite never giving way to emotional anxieties, she sometimes criticised the disintegration of not only Charles’s marriage, but Anne and Andrew’s as well on her peculiar remoteness when the children were growing up.

The Prince of Wales must have sensed it, too, since when he wanted to spill out his heart about his difficulties with his wife, it was to the Queen Mother he turned and later to Camilla Parker Bowles, never to his own mother.  The extent of Diana’s sadness became obvious, particularly when she colluded with reporter Andrew Morton on a book that became a list of matrimonial complaints, as one biographer provided a description.

She provided off-the-record transcripts and allowed her friends and family to talk to Morton.  When the book emerged, sparing no detail, the Queen adhered to the misconception that Diana could not have been involved.  The Princess lied to the face of Palace private secretary Robert Fellowes, her own brother-in-law, and dismissed all collusion. The Queen believed her.

Just a week later the secret got out when she pointedly attended one of the book’s named sources, Carolyn Bartholomew. Diana was a certified accomplice.  Fellowes did the noble thing and gave the Queen his resignation. She rejected it on the grounds that he was not the one liable of deceiving her.

Six days after the saga happened, Diana stood with her mother-in-law on the Palace terrace after the Trooping the Colour, as if nothing was wrong.  However, the facade had to break. At Ascot the ensuing week, Prince Philip ignored Diana in full view of everybody in the Royal Enclosure.

Even then, the Queen firmly believed in discretion. She asked for a six-month cooling-off period to let tempers subside.  However, she had again failed to understand why the Princess acted in such an unusual, intriguing way.  Charles’s tolerance snapped when he planned a hunting weekend at Sandringham with his sons, who were then at prep academy, only to find out that Diana had taken them to Windsor by herself.

Raging on the telephone to his mother about his wife’s latest planned indignity, Charles forgot himself and yelled down the line at the Monarch, screaming at his mother that Diana was insane.  Diana did nothing to dismiss the indictment when she began suggesting darkly that Palace attendants were planning to slander her by using the Secret services to monitor on her private conversations.

The Queen dismissed this as rubbish yet, declined to allow the family to discuss the Charles and Diana position openly.   Princess Margaret, the Queen’s sibling, confided in friends that the subject was so loftily off-limits that no guest would risk referring to it.

Like her own mother, the Queen has perpetually coped with difficult emotions by keeping the multiple challenges of her rule in sealed compartments and never confronting the unsavoury.  However, the marriage collapse couldn’t be ignored permanently. On December 9th, 1992, Prime Minister John Major announced to the Commons that with disappointment, the Prince and Princess of Wales have taken the decision to separate.

The Queen was at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate with only a few staff when the decision came.  It was an emotional setting, here, in 1919, in this redbrick dwelling concealed from view at the end of a tree-lined driveway, her 13-year-old uncle, Prince John, had died of an epileptic seizure.

Rather than viewing the announcement to Parliament, the Queen did what she usually did when disturbed, and took her corgis for a stroll through the wintry woodlands and over the cultivated Norfolk fields.  When she got back, she dried the dogs off, and almost instantly took them out again, clothed in her typical country attire of wellington boots, Loden coat and headscarf.

As she returned for the second time, an elder member of staff approached to give his sympathies. The Queen answered quickly ‘I think you will find it’s all for the best’, and stepped out once more into the rain.  The following five years brought little reprieve. Particularly upsetting was a biography of Charles by the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, which displayed his relationship with his parents as remote, the Queen was described as distant, the Duke of Edinburgh as a bully.

The Queen was so concerned at the continuous faultfinding of her and her family that she became convinced, in May 1995, that the people would revolt against the Royals during the 50th-anniversary ceremonies of VE Day, and that the masses would stay away from the Palace.

During the early morning, she kept staring anxiously out of the window, to monitor whether her subjects were waiting to see her.  To her inexpressible relief, by the time she made her balcony entrance with her sibling and their 94-year-old mother, the Mall was crowded.  The Queen was touched, a member of staff explained later. When she went on to the balcony she remained stony faced for fear of revealing too much excitement. She was indeed near to tears.

The masses that congregated outside the Palace two years later were in a much different mood. As days progressed following Diana’s passing and there was no news from the Palace, they were swerving perilously near to becoming a mob.  Multiple people denounced the Royal Family vociferously for staying in Balmoral, rather than returning to London, and for refusing to fly the flag at half-mast over Buckingham Palace.

The Queen was confused by these critiques. The interest of the flag was insignificant etiquette. She was not in residence, so the flag was not flown.  Far more important, she wanted the family to remain in Scotland to give her grandsons an opportunity to grasp the trauma of their mother’s passing as far as possible from the public eye.

Her first priority was tantamount to shield them.  On the morning that Diana died, Charles revealed the colossal news to his boys before the entire family went to church at nearby Crathie. Following that, the boys were encouraged to mourn in private.  The Queen saw prime minister Tony Blair’s public announcements were much better suited to the sweeping mood, however, his strategy was not one she could use.

She eventually returned to London on September 5th and was driven straight to the Palace where, with Prince Philip at her side, she left the security of her vehicle and went to mingle with the masses near the flower-covered railings.  Dressed in black, she strolled along the path of mourners in complete muteness until an 11-year-old girl gave her five red roses, and the Queen inquired if she would like her to put them down for the little girl, but the little girl said that they were not for Diana, they were for the Queen.

An aide recalled you could hear the masses start to clap, and he remembers thinking, gosh, it’s all right.  By the time she made her live newscast that night, the Monarch was more her normal self.  She greeted the public as your Queen and as a grandmother and gave praise to Diana, saying she was just an extraordinary and talented human being. In good times and bad, she never lost her ability to smile and laugh, nor to encourage others with her passion and compassion. The Queen told everybody that she admired and respected her, particularly for her dedication to her two boys.

Charles had been spending more and more time with Camilla, the consort of Guards officer Andrew Parker Bowles, and the affair had even reached the ears of the Queen.

In April 1980, Charles had taken Camilla with him to Zimbabwe, where he was called upon to represent his mother at the country’s independence celebration.  Apparently, Camilla was travelling over to see her husband.  However at a communal feast in Harare, the pair philandered blatantly and Charles fumbled underneath the table with his concubine whilst her husband stoically looked the other way. The episode was so obvious that news of it reached the Queen.

And there were are occasions when the Queen and Prince Philip were baffled by their beloved son that they had created.  It was little surprise, then, that Charles’s parents were so relieved to greet Diana to the fold. It helped, too, that she’d known the Royal Family since childhood when her father Earl Spencer rented a ten bedroom farmhouse on the Sandringham estate.

78935

That November whilst Diana was visiting Sandringham. Crowds of journalists and cameramen circled the residence.  Characteristically, the Queen declared nothing to Charles directly, however, she did talk to Philip, who communicated to their beloved son a prudently thought letter.

Media pressure was creating an extreme situation, said Philip, which indicated that Charles must now come to a speedy decision. Either he must offer Diana his hand, or he must break off the relationship to bypass jeopardising her reputation.  Charles would furiously bellow to friends in the following years that he was pressured into the marriage. However, the letter that his father addressed to Charles was actually pretty helpful, and his father was attempting to be helpful. It unquestionably did not read as a demand.

On the wedding day itself, in July 1981, Her Majesty was as dizzy as everybody else with the intense excitement of the day. That night, she watched the wedding all over again on wide screen televisions put in place in Claridge’s.  Dry martini in hand, she considered her own reflection closely, pointing delightedly whenever the cameras caught one of her famous sullen expressions. It was noted how she smiled with joy whenever images of her new daughter-in-law appeared.

She did not leave till 1.30 in the morning, hitching up her skirt and doing a tiny dance as she said her farewells. ‘I’d love to stay and dance all night,’ she stated.  Three weeks later, she greeted Charles and Diana back from their ocean-going honeymoon with comparable enthusiasm.

As they neared Balmoral in an old pony trap, the Queen ran alongside, jumping and hopping to keep up, whilst her husband pedalled on an antique bike before rushing off ahead to welcome them at the door.  However, it was quickly obvious that something was wrong. At midday, the Queen would arrive in the hall in her headscarf to take the women guests to luncheon with the men on the grouse moorlands. It went without saying that no one should be a second late.

So they were all waiting in the hall, making friendly conversation, however, Diana was nowhere to be viewed.  Then after some time, the Queen sent a servant off to figure out where Diana had got to, he went off, and then came back looking very flustered, stating that the Princess of Wales would not be joining the gathering for luncheon.

The Queen was pretty quiet, and friends noticed the danger signs, the pursed lips, the extra swift flicker of the eyes.  In the monarch’s opinion, staying in your room at lunchtime was something you simply did if you were unwell, and it was very strange.  However, one had to make adjustments.

Diana was a new girl in the fold, who was finding it really hard to get used to everything.  However, it was a bit more complex than that, for, in the year since she made her first triumphant arrival at Balmoral, Diana had made the startling revelation that her husband’s profound emotions were assigned to another woman.

‘Whatever happens, I will always love you,’ she’d heard him telling Camilla on the telephone whilst taking a bath.  Both this and her discovery that his concubine had given him new cufflinks highlighting their entwined initials inspired a string of unfortunate disputes.

‘She’s not like the rest of us, ‘ revealed the Queen. ‘She’s very young’

That autumn in Scotland, Diana would be beaming one minute then bursting helplessly into tears the next, and her new mother-in-law worked laboriously to support her.

Thinking about what had happened to the happy girl who’d been game for anything one year earlier, Elizabeth referred the dilemma to specialists.  By the close of September 1981, Diana was on a plane to London to meet with leading Harley Street psychoanalysts, and having done what she could to assist Diana with her hidden demons, the Queen asked the editors of Fleet Street, and asked them to give her more space.

Nevertheless, the only solution to her dilemmas was that Charles stopped his romance with Camilla Parker-Bowles, that was the only quandary that Diana had.  She loved her husband completely, furthermore, that was everything she desired, she just desired the man that she had married – Charlie boy!

However, her only goal in the union was a successor to the throne, a baby maker for the Royal sovereignty.  Charles did not marry Diana out of passion, he married her because he had to, it was his obligation to take a wife to father, and produce a successor.  The purpose of the British Royal Family is procreation; its principal responsibility is to produce at minimum one heir to the throne. Each heir has to produce a child that will ensure the continuation of a sovereignty that started with Athelstan, the first king of all England in 926.

Once reigning, a Monarch can, still, renounce from the throne abandoning their claim to be King or Queen. This was the situation with King Edward VIII who renounced in 1936 to marry twice-divorced American girlfriend Wallis Simpson. As head of the Church of England, the King wasn’t permitted to marry Simpson as she was divorced.

This doesn’t appear particularly just, considering Camilla Parker-Bowels was similarly divorced, however, Charles was allowed to marry her following Diana’s premature departure, rather convenient, don’t you think?  If Diana had been alive now, would Charles have really been allowed to marry Camilla, perhaps not?  There would have been an uproar from the country’s audience of people.  The Queen would never have heard the end of it, and it made it, even more, easier for the Royal family to get rid of her since she was in a relationship with Dodi Al-Fayed.

Placed all together, and you can come to your own determination, Princess Diana was a liability, a liability that had to die so that Charles could marry Camilla Parker-Bowels, and promptly out of sight out of mind, the people then embraced Charles marrying Camilla without a second thought to the beautiful Princess Diana.

It shouldn’t matter how noble you are, having respect for another human being should be paramount above all else.  Just because Charles is of nobility, and was formerly married to Diana, did not make her lower in status, in fact, it made her majorly higher ranking than he was since she was the mother of his children.

Sadly, the Royal family appear to think that they have jurisdiction over all, including human behaviour.  We all have needs, particularly when in marriage to another person, and we should not be compelled into a situation because of a need, or because the law commands that there should be a successor to the sovereignty.

Most people mate for love, though in some nations there are arranged unions, however, we’re not in those countries, and even the Royal family should be able to choose a spouse for love and for life, though that’s not invariably the situation because, in this day and age, most marriages break down, even the Royal family, however, we don’t live in an ideal universe, we exist in a flawed society, and not all is black and white.

If the Royal family are not careful, they will dive into an abyss, and sit wearily at the bottom, and it’s just to say will never recover their position since people will realise that they are not all that they make themselves out to be.

Edward had a status as a playboy and there had been numerous liaisons with married women whilst he was Prince of Wales.  Nothing created more embarrassment than his involvement with Mrs Simpson, as it became apparent that the pair had fallen in love.

Elizabeth, the descendant of a Scottish noble, and Wallis, whose father was a prosperous Baltimore flour merchant, moved in corresponding polished societies and was merely four years apart in age.  However, disposition and style-wise they was total counterparts and disliked one another from their first meeting.

Wallis, the small and chic American socialite who liked dark colours, was forever pitched as the evil sorceress opposite Elizabeth, the English rose who clothed in pastels and had a severe sense of decorum.  There was one unfortunate meeting, in 1935, at Edward’s countryside retreat Fort Belvedere in Windsor Great Park.

Wallis named Elizabeth, the Dowdy Duchess, or the fat Scottish cook, whilst the future Queen just termed her the American, that woman, or a certain person.  In one letter Elizabeth said that she considered Wallis as the lowest of the low, a thoroughly immoral woman, who she tried her best to avoid.

She is further supposed to have described the sheer vulgarity of Edward and Mrs Simpson.  Their mutual hatred developed into distrust and permanent bitterness as the abdication disaster unfolded, following the passing of King George V in January 1936.

Elizabeth revealed that she felt quite overcome with horror and emotion when it grew clear that Edward could not be discouraged from marrying Wallis.  She considered her brother-in-law a feeble man who had been led adrift by a manipulative femme fatale.

Compelled to choose between the sovereign and Wallis, Edward opted for the latter and renounced.  King Edward VIII did something that sovereigns do not have the indulgence of doing, he fell in love. King Edward was in love with Mrs Wallis Simpson, not only an American but further a married woman already once divorced. However, in order to marry the woman he loved, King Edward was prepared to give up the British throne, and he did, on December 10, 1936.

Yet, Charles was not stifled with this, he was allowed to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, despite being a divorcee.  Hence, presently, what was not good enough for Edward, is now good enough for Charles and the Royal family, and Camilla has been granted a title as well, she is now recognised as the Duchess of Cornwall.

For millions of women the world over, the best time to reflect profoundly on their family is when they are doing mundane household duties. For the Queen, it is when she is sorting within the candle store at Balmoral.

It was there, between the peace of this comforting ritual, when our famously prudent ruler chooses which candles to keep and which are burned so low that they must be abandoned, that she made up her mind about Charles and Camilla, and, unusual for the Queen, said what amounted to an order, that this game of cat and mouse could not go on.

The game was the way Charles and his concubine Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles were continuing to meet furtively less than two years following Princess Diana’s passing. Obviously, it was too early for them to endorse marriage, although the Queen’s opinion was that they should be honest about the association.

Her candle-cupboard epiphany came after Charles had held a party at Buckingham Palace for 80 guests, comprising Camilla. The Queen and Prince Philip was away at Windsor organising Prince Edward’s wedding to Sophie Rhys-Jones.

It was Camilla’s first time officially inside the Dwelling since she had been forbidden from ruling premises, and dismissed from its guest list several years beforehand by the Queen, following the trauma of discovering that her son was having a relationship with the wife of a brother officer in the Brigade of Guards, something that was just not done.

Banning Camilla was a tough choice since the Queen had known her for ages, and the Queen Mother was her husband Andrew Parker Bowles’s godmother. Relationships had been friendly and cordial.

Camilla proposed a different threat, not so much to the Queen as to the sovereignty itself. The Queen was afraid that if Charles became king as a single man with Camilla his shadowy concubine, it could plunge the Sovereign into an instant disaster.

On the other hand, if he and Camilla married too soon, whilst visions of Diana were still fresh, there would be public resentment towards the Palace.  Following Diana’s passing. The Queen knew how great emotions were flowing about Camilla. They knew they had to get rid of the mistress label. However, it was a matter of timing.

Camilla had previously appeared in public with the prince, at The Ritz hotel in London, and the Queen acknowledged that Charles’s unyielding emphasis that Camilla was non-negotiable was directed as much at her, his mother, as it was to the populace.

With the Queen’s support, her then private secretary Sir Robert, now Lord Fellowes had personally meddled with Charles, delivering to him that he should give up Camilla for the welfare of the sovereignty. It was a sensitive mission for Sir Robert as his wife, Lady Jane, was one of Diana’s two elder sisters. Charles’s answer was an unyielding rejection, which simply confirms that Charles never loved Diana in the first place, and was simply made to marry her for an heir to the thrown.

The utter reality that the Queen approved of Charles in his attempt to marry Camilla, just proves how blameworthy she was as well.  Since he did not flirt with just one woman, he did so with several women, however, his designs were largely on Camilla, but who knows what might have occurred if his intentions had sequentially shifted to somebody else.

Finally, they would be allowed to marry with the clause that Camilla performed no role in royal duties, and absolutely should not be called Princess of Wales. This may have been the Queen’s decision, however for the ever-climbing Camilla, only the last clause still continues unimpaired today.

So, where does the well-being of the Royal family actually lay, and does their survival lay in the balance?  Perhaps, with a breeze, it might all be gone before we even squint our eyes, and could we actually imagine if Charles was to become King, that Camilla Parker-Bowles might one day become Queen, I dread the thought.

Two months before the departure of the Princess of Wales, Prince Charles concluded it was high time to tell his boys about the woman he loved.  He sat them down collectively and attempted to tell them how Camilla Parker Bowles had re-entered his life, following an adolescent love affair, and made him very happy. When he’d stopped talking, William and Harry were pretty quiet.

It was obvious. Charles revealed later to a friend, that William, in particular, just didn’t want to know. For the time being, no more was spoken.  In truth, it wasn’t as if William, then 15, didn’t now know more than he’d ever needed to about the woman who’d rekindled her relationship with his father whilst both were still married.

More than everything else, it was discovering Camilla was back in the picture that had angered his mother and destroyed the ambience at home.  Diana had gone into meltdown, despite the reality that her own unfaithfulness had started years beforehand.

From then on, she and Charles could hardly stand being in the same room as each other, let alone under the same home. They saw their personal friends, did their own things and lived mostly separate lives.  On the times they were together, there were blistering fights, tears and hysterics, anger and rage, all detected to some extent by everybody in the residence. Kensington Palace was tiny and poorly soundproofed, yet not even the stone walls at Highgrove were solid enough to extinguish their caustic exchanges. 

For two impressionable adolescent boys, it was an anxious and troubled time. And while Charles never welcomed Camilla to both of his houses whilst the boys were there, William, at least, was completely conscious of the reason for Diana’s grief.

What William didn’t know for a prolonged time was that Diana’s suspicions were for numerous years simply unsupported.  They went back to the early days of her association with Charles when she’d happened to come across a gold-coloured trinket that Charles was preparing to post to Camilla.

In fact, the trinket was one of the numerous items of jewels he’d purchased for individual friends as a thank you for having looked after him in his bachelor years. And it had never occurred to Charles, who was surprisingly ignorant in such things, that Diana might have a dilemma with a previous sweetheart remaining in his group of friends.

After she made it clear that she did, he simply separated all connection with Camilla. Yet Diana’s doubts smouldered, and years later she convinced herself that her husband was back with his former girlfriend.

Charles, meanwhile, fell into a disturbing hole. Finally, his old friends became terrified, fretting he might be on the brink of feelings of self-destruction.  It was Patti Palmer-Tomkinson who put him back in touch with Camilla, whose own marriage had long been a pretence because of her husband’s unfaithfulness. Camilla, thought Patti, was seemingly the only person who might be able to repair Charles’s spirits.

As the world found in January 1993, she absolutely thrived in doing that. For Charles, publication of the so-called Camillagate tape, a tape of a late-night private discussion he’d had with his concubine, was the ultimate embarrassment.

It wasn’t so much that the successor to the throne had talked about wanting always to be with the woman he loved. What prompted harsh response was that he pondered about turning into a tampon to accomplish this.

Even Diana, whilst experiencing a little entertainment from this, was mortified on his account. Also Charles’s biggest concern at the time, he said to friends, was not just for William and Harry, but also for Camilla’s children, Tom and Laura, who were a few years older.

He was quite right to be worried. With each chapter in the publicly crumbling marriage of his parents, William was growing less brave, bold and cheeky.  In particular, he was strongly affected at the age of 12 by the portrait and documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby, in which his father confessed infidelity. However, as the youthful Prince became more benumbed, his brother, still too green to completely know what was going on, seemed to bloom.

It was growing obvious that William was taking on to his young shoulders the weight of burden for his parents’ well-being and happiness. However, since he loved both his parents, his devotion and emotions were split down the centre.

To be asked, on top of all that, to understand his father’s love for Camilla was way too much. Sensibly, the Prince of Wales allowed the controversial subject to be dismissed.  Whilst William’s parents appeared hell-bent on self-destruction, the balance that came from different grown-ups about him may well have stopped him from careering off the rails.

Then there was the ditzy fashionable aristocrat called Alexandra Legge-Bourke, known as Tiggy, who Charles appointed after parting from Diana to work in loco parentis to the boys at Highgrove, his home in Gloucestershire when he had responsibilities elsewhere.

At 28, Tiggy was a bundle of joy, a cross between a kind, benevolent mother and a somewhat wild elder sister. Impulsively, she spoke of her royal commands: ‘I give them what they need at this stage: fresh air, a rifle and a horse. She, their mother gives them a tennis racket and a bucket of popcorn at the movies.’

Tiggy was refreshingly uncomplicated and William and Harry loved her.

She encouraged them to saddle their ponies into waggons and took them to gymkhanas and polo lessons.  Together, they went rabbit hunting, fishing, climbing, shooting and go-karting.

Diana, nevertheless, appeared usurped. She began a rumour that Tiggy and Prince Charles were having an affair, evidence of which was an innocent peck on the cheek caught by cameramen.

Next, the Princess left a string of annoying messages on Tiggy’s answering machine. Her crusade climaxed with Diana supposedly going up to her at the staff Christmas party and muttering: ‘So sorry about the baby.’

As the Princess knew, Tiggy had recently been in the hospital for a minor procedure, so the assumption was that she’d had an abortion. This was wrong and resulted in a lawyer’s letter, however, Diana continued to dislike Tiggy.

When she found that Tiggy had helped Charles with the invitations to William’s confirmation, in March 1997, she went through the roof. If that woman was going to be there, she warned, she wouldn’t be attending herself.

What should have been a happy and religiously important event for Prince William turned into another family nightmare.  Not only was Tiggy forbidden from the ceremony, but his grandmother, Frances Shand Kydd, was also absent since Diana was going through a period of not talking to her. In fact, the Princess had been directed to summon 40 people but invited no one.

It’s undeniably obvious that there was a lot of tit for tat when it came to Charles and Diana, however, it’s also undeniable that his affection for Diana or lack of admiration for Diana spanned from before the marriage and following the marriage.

Diana knew of his conjugal ventures with Camilla, which must have made Diana really upset, and not feeling particularly admired by Charles.  The entire engagement and marriage had been a deception, but not only to Diana but the entire world. 

Everyone likes a fairy-tale wedding, of course, they do, we wouldn’t be human if we didn’t.  We want things to look real, even if they’re not.  What was important was that Diana resembled the character on the day and that she was like a fairy-tale Princess.

Yet unbeknown to everyone else, she actually was this submissive adolescent girl whose behaviour was shy, yet, in the end, there was an uprising of rebellion.  What happened, the Royal family never in a million years thought would occur, Diana resisted, not with a chirp, but with a roar.

She was not putting up with it any longer, her well-being was of more consequence, she had to sink or swim, and she swam, and swam, and as long as she was doing that, the Royal family were powerless to restrain her any longer.

She was a human being, and they could no longer keep her at bay, yet she was never uncouth about it, she perpetually did what she did with style.  She had gone from the ugly duckling, who never achieved passing her exams at school, to a somewhat intelligent woman, since she was no longer that uneducated that they could not do what they wanted with her, to mould her to do as they desired at will.

At the end of the day, it’s a really depressing story, yet it’s not a story at all, it all actually occurred, and you can define your own judgments as you want, but what befell Diana should clearly never repeat itself again since the event was ruinous.

pt_1736

Diana will forever be Queen of People’s Hearts, and her impact on the people of Britain will never be forgotten, and should not be forgotten, and there might be people out there that will still attempt to destroy her honour, however, she greatly gratified the people of England, even if she did not do so to the Monarchy.

Iain Duncan Smith Should Be Sanctioned

Iain Duncan Smith should be sanctioned because it inconvenienced him to defend welfare cuts. He was avoiding his responsibilities after he turned up to a Commons debate, however, left his junior coworkers to field questions that he himself should have been doing.

Mr Duncan Smith should consequently be banished from the Parliamentary canteen to force him to a food bank where there is a range of delights he can have to eat. This appears to be the second time the secretary of state has failed to address the House when questions have been asked of his department.

He can’t just go around not turning up when he should be there, or else what’s the point of him even being employed in that particular profession, and if he can’t realise his responsibilities, then maybe he should stand down and give someone else a chance, maybe somebody that can in fact do the job well.

There were 600,000 people in the United Kingdom who were sanctioned by his last year, some for failing to turn up to a job interview, some because they were selling poppies, some because they were present at their father’s funeral, and one because they had a heart attack.

Someone should set upon Iain Duncan Smith for not showing up for work. Practice what you preach Mr Duncan Smith, and lead by example, if you can’t do that, then you are not at liberty, telling others what they can and can’t do, particularly when some of these people are dying at your very own hands.

The reality that the secretary of state can’t even be bothered to support his own pet project of Universal Credit, perhaps tells me that it’s all got too much for him, and he can’t be bothered with it any longer, and if he can’t come out to play with the big boys anymore, then maybe he should consider handing over his resignation. After all, you should never ask a child to do a man’s job!

Cuts To Sexual Health Services Will Usher Its Way To STI Eruptions

Cuts to sexual health services will steer to additional terminations of pregnancy, accidental pregnancies and a flare-up of sexually transmitted diseases. Talk about adding insult to injury, that’s precisely what the government wants – With more abortions, unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, we’re talking about adding death to the toll.

They’re not trying to keep us alive, they’re trying to kill us off, and in the operation of this, they’re making us suffer. The difficulty is their achieving this, and it’s not taking much elbow grease as they lower the population. Nevertheless, this should be a warning, since the government is gravely convinced that human life is polluting what they truthfully believe is their planet.

The tip-off comes as Labour states that local councils in England will spend as much as £40 million less than proposed this year, on services such as testing and treating infections such as herpes and syphilis as a result of George Osborne’s commitment to slash £200 million from the public health budget, now, there’s a way to kill off hundreds of helpless people, and assign the guilt onto spending cuts, when in fact they just want to kill off human beings because we’re not sustainable any longer.

Some councils have now begun to bring down their budget for testing people suspected to have contracted an infection such as chlamydia and gonorrhoea by as much as 36% when the government hasn’t even started to reduce the health budget, however, Chinese whispers have already got out and about, and councils are at present on the band wagon before anything has been actually decided.

Cutting funds from front-line NHS sexual health services are a hopeless false financial management, and you don’t have to be the brains of the outfit to foresee the outcome.

All you old fuddy-duddies lumbering along the last few laps of life, are you willing to make your transition as a sacrifice to the younger generation and taxpayers in general? Since it’s the intentionality of the government, not just to kill off the young, but the old alike, particularly the elderly.

And the rest of you, are you prepared to put your men, women and children to sleep like a displeasing dog or cat?

They’ll be getting rid of a hell of a lot of the elderly to reach their maximum planetary population of 500 million, however, they have numerous other ways of removing vast numbers of people, they make it look like a piece of cake.

Anything that comes out of the United Nations is not in the best interest of us ordinary folk.

They’re telling us what to think again, and they liberally sprinkle it with that favoured word ‘sustainability, ’ and they’re placing the seed of the concept in the minds of mankind hoping it will take root.

Agenda 21 isn’t only population control though, they have a long term plan already in progress for impounding land and restricting us to nominated regions that won’t be pleasant living quarters, everything will be controlled, absolutely everything.

All you wrinkly, middle aged has beens, are you ready to move over and let the next generation have your place on the planet? After all, you’ve lived an excellent life, and your ageing body is going to cost the taxpayers a lot more than the salt you think you’re worth. In other words, your return on investment isn’t looking so magnificent to the United Nations.

In case you haven’t heard, our minds are being shaped to look upon you as the encumbrance you are, and it’s time to see yourself that way too.

That’s right. The United Nations is promoting we euthanise our ageing parents, and it’s the harsh reality of Agenda 21, a very real global master plan to lessen the population in the years ahead. It reverberates like something out of a zombie movie, however, it’s been going on now for some years.

Camouflaged as environmental stewardship, Agenda 21 is nothing more than repackaged Socialism, with numerous heavy hitters with billions of dollars and global control that are behind it.

It’s draining to think that through the press and advertising, as well as government we’re dedicated to just force the elderly, as well as the young and frail to the assembly of death, so that government can have a one world nation, not so much different from Hitler really when you come to think of it.

The Holocaust was the structured, bureaucratic, state promoted victimisation and homicide of six million Jews by the Nazi government and its collaborators. This is the systematic, bureaucratic, state sponsored persecution of men, women, children, the elderly and disabled by a draconian government and its colluders.

Our government believes that it’s superior, and were considered inferior, and we’re an alien threat to the governmental community.

Even though Jews, whom the Nazis considered a prime concern of danger to Germany, where the main targets of Nazi racism, other victims comprised some 200,000 Roma (Gypsies). At least 200,000 mentally or physically disabled patients, mostly Germans, living in institutional settings, were exterminated in the so called Euthanasia Programme. Are you getting the picture?

The Pale of Settlement was first brought about by Catherine the Great in 1791, following various unsuccessful endeavours by her forerunners, notably the Empress Elizabeth, to remove Jews from Russia completely unless they converted to Russian Orthodoxy, the cause for its creation were first and foremost economic and nationalist.

Private property rights are under assault all across this country and across the world. The scrapping of private property is one of the principles of the UN Agenda 21 because they consider private property ownership, unless it’s them owning it, they believe it’s unfair. Are you still getting the picture?

The UN Conference on Human Settlements states:
‘Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice… The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of a society as a whole.’

The Western World has flourished because we had statutes which secured our property. Nearly all countries around the world lack those preservations, which are one of the reasons why they’ve never been able to lift themselves out of squalor, and they lack laws which keep their property rights safe.

Property rights begins the rule of law. What makes people fascinated in the rule of law, and the first thing they comprehend, is that everyone on this earth lives on a plot of land.

Our success must be equal to and redistributed to third world countries, however, the people driving UN Agenda 21 have no regard in raising the quality of living for all nations, their objective is to put an end to all first world standards, excluding them of course, and to produce a sea of slaves begging for a kernel of rice.

Part of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 is the scrapping of private property. Seizure of private property will be done under the disguise of sustainability. They will maintain that having a substantial plot of land is an ineffective use of the land, and that your land would be better used if it was expanded into something else, or not developed at all.

Maybe they’d sooner that a mass transit, light rail runs right through your property. So they will take your property over through eminent land, coercing you out of your own house and off your property to somewhere else where they have much more closely packed housing, and use the land that was formerly yours as they see fit.

These types of dictatorial actions are being implemented around the country at a local level. In California, there is a statute that’s awaiting a signature that would institute an agency at the county level that could snatch private property fundamentally on impulse and blame it on sustainability.

This is, of course, is nothing less than communism, they just don’t call it communism, they camouflage what they’re doing by calling it social justice.

Sustainable development is the key expression, showing that the underlings have been completely brainwashed into the UN agenda.

Social Justice, clean energy, sustainable agriculture, inclusive and equitable, gender equality, management of water (rationing), affordable and reliable energy (rationing again), sustainable economic growth, human settlements, core wilderness zones, sustainable consumption of food (another rationing programme), combat climate change, biodiversity.

If you ask any government official what these terms convey to the public, they will get annoyed, or they will ignore you by telling you to read their plans. In addition, they will tell you that the funding that the city badly requires will not come if they don’t use these items in their plan.

One of the objectives of Agenda 21 is to re wild over 50%, and an extra 10% for buffer zones around the re wilded zones. Out of necessity, this will force the human population off the rural lands and into, using Agenda 21 vocabulary, ‘Human settlements. ’

Once there, the behaviour of humans can be more simply observed and controlled, consequently creating sustainability.

Sustainability, as explained by the 1987 United Nations report is development that meets the requirements of today without compromising the potentiality of future generations to meet their own needs.

The consumption patterns of the well to do middle class, involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioners, and suburban housing are not sustainable.

In other words, for Agenda 21, Sustainable Development to be fully implemented, we must give up what we have and embrace the lifestyle imposed upon us by the radical leftist Sustainablists.

To construct sustainability in the human settlements, there will be regulations and rules to control the use of all resources, air, land, water, energy, and all resources underground. These regulations are incorporated beneath the category of Smart Growth.

Smart Growth rules fall first and foremost into three groups that are all planned to alter human behaviour.

There will be regulations to discourage travel and the ownership of automobiles, regulations to discourage you from having children, and regulations that will discourage you from using water, land, energy, and the consumption of using materials, whether it be toilet paper or materials to build a home.

There will be borders around the city and there will be prevention on expansion outside the boundary, which is a Smart Growth strategy. This generates a situation where land inside the human settlement is at a premium, while land outside the boundary has little if any value.

This in turn will cause land prices, land taxes, and overcrowding within the perimeter to increase, but a decrease in the size of homes and the number of children because smaller home and fewer children will also decrease energy usage.

One more Smart Growth master plan is to not increase the width or length of highways in an endeavour to generate congestion and an unpleasant driving experience. Permitting bikes to travel on these space highway systems will furthermore force the matter.

There will be regulations to stop the construction of garages on new homes. That will deter vehicle proprietorship and save on building materials.

The installation of Smart Meters is an especially controversial Smart Growth issue. Smart Meters can detect and or remotely turn off home devices when the utility company makes up its mind that the consumer is using too much energy.

Furthermore, the radio frequencies given off by these Smart Meters will be connected to a variety of health matters.

Limiting mining, drilling, refining, and or transporting of fossil fuels will expand the cost curve for electricity, petrol, natural gas et cetera, which will in turn force conservation by the users.

Smart Growth rules may remove from the market place all appliances excluding those that radically control energy and resources like water and electricity.

Everybody is familiar with low flow toilets which, while they may save water. Frequently function badly.

Occasionally, when regulations can’t generate the required change, grants and subsidies are used as an alternative. When the government steps in to manage change in this way, the free market is removed.

Since much of the land will be off limits to humans, it will require that humans be limited to procuring that which they need to survive from the land near to the human settlements, but not to fear, the Sustainabilists have this all planned out.

At all times remember the end game that is being sought by folks driving Agenda 21 is jurisdiction over humans and the Earth’s resources, with the environment being used as the excuse.

The concentration of people in these regions or zones will be made easy prey, and this will destroy whole populations, and cause sizeable property damage.

Schooling for the New World Order is what is developing before your eyes. The Common Core is that no child is left behind, however, what they’re really doing is brainwashing and indoctrinating our children to be complacent, obedient sheep who will not at anytime argue what they’ve been told, nor ever contemplate resisting the agenda.

The majority of people believe the term New World Order is just some meaningless drool some conspiracy theorist voiced. They think there is nothing to see or to fret about, that they should just disregard it, and that nothing could be further from the truth. Think again, there is something to see and something to worry about.

Indoctrination through education is the key to success in turning the world upside down. Ignorance is strength, and indeed it is. As our lack of knowledge gets bigger, so does their strength. The New World Order, also known as the moneychangers and their footmen, has been using education to build the chains of our slavery, one link at a time, for a really long time, and it’s hard to free fools from the shackles they respect.

Tory MP Says Sorry Over Uneducated And Really Insulting Remarks

 

A Tory MP has been forced into a humiliating climb-down after stating diabetes was completely preventable on Facebook. Derek Thomas, the Conservative MP for St Ives, aroused a cyclone of protest when he wrote that a doctor had told him the condition was easily dodged through good diet and exercise.

His post failed to identify the difference between type 1 diabetes, which is genetic, and type 2, which is frequently connected with your way of life, and can occasionally be treated through diet and exercise.

Facebook users swiftly circled on the Tory, branding his remarks as ignorant and very offensive, nevertheless, the post has since been removed.

Mr Thomas subsequently posted a correction, in which he said he was sorry for his previous declaration, and accurately explained the two different types of diabetes.

Mr Thomas expressed his gratitude to everyone who pointed out that he was incorrect to state that diabetes was preventable, and that he was genuinely sorry for getting his facts wrong.

What makes me chuckle the most is that one it’s none of his business on people’s behaviour and lifestyles. The other thing is this, has he even thought that the way people conduct their lifestyle is in fact down to the government anyhow.

All I have to do is mention Genetically Modified, and we’re in a whole new ball game. Genetically modified organisms are fundamentally genetically engineered foods, they’re foods that have had lab produced genes from plants, animals, or viruses added to the existing gene pool to make them better.

By better, I mean that this enhanced food might be more impervious, to say, disease, insects, drought, or heat – sounds like we’re expecting Armageddon.

The advantage of genetic engineering comprises a heartier crop, or a crop that is able to resist bacteria, viruses and fungi, so there will never be another potato famine, and no more harm from insects.

In addition, GMO foods can be more nourishing than their traditional equivalent, GMO rice grown in Asia contains more zinc and more iron than regular rice, and that’s great news for Third World countries if you want to pimp their paddy fields.

The US Department of Energy is on board with GMO foods, asserting that genetically engineered foods are environmentally friendly, as their production preserves energy and water, lowers pollution, and increases the productivity of crops. They also say that GMO technology can help make sure that striving countries are able to supply food for their inhabitants.

That’s why there are some 795 million people in the world that don’t have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That’s about one in nine people on earth. So, how are Genetically Modified foods, helping these people that are dying of hunger?

Funny that, Asia is the continent with the most hungry people, two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years, but in western Asia it has increased a little, so where is this Genetically Modified food they’re talking about?

Not everybody is on board with GMO foods, however, as attractive as they may sound, GMO foods may not be as safe as we believe, and one of the concerns is that the health ramifications of GMO foods aren’t really known.

It’s a little unnerving to think that switching out and putting genes into our food chain might be doing to us. The testing hasn’t been done, and funding for this kind of research is sadly missing.

If the research on this hasn’t been done properly, does that mean that if there’s any huge consequences, and people are getting ill because of GMO foods, does that mean that there could also be a big legal action against the companies manufacturing these Genetically Modified foods that people are feeding their faces with?

The USDA and FDA face immense stress from biotech lobbyists, including lobbyists from the biotech giant Monsanto. Some research has uncovered that GMO foods fed to animals affected the size and function of their internal organs, affecting their immune systems, which may speed up the ageing process.

It appears that these companies have enough money to manufacture GMO foods, but not enough money to investigate these accurately before impacting them onto innocent human beings.

Of course, we have a choice, we don’t have to eat them – the trouble is, what foods are they in, and how much of it has been affected, and how long has this been going on, and is it too late for the people that have been eating them, better yet, if we have no concept how long GMO’s have been added to our food, how long before our children will be affected, that’s if they haven’t been affected already.

It appears that those that produce GMO foods have more money than sense with their faint smell of success, however, it’s not even about that. When the US government disregarded frequent dangers by its own scientists and permitted untested genetically modified crops into our habitat and food supply, it was a gamble of unparalleled proportions, and the health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

Following two decades, doctors and scientists have exposed a grave trend. Identical serious health difficulties established in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population, and when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms, their health gets better.

A petition is circulating to convince three of the top infant formula labels in the US, Abbott Laboratories (Similac), Mead Johnson Nutrition (Enamil), and Nestle (Gerber Good Start), to stop using genetically modified ingredients in their baby production.

Each of these powdered formulas is full of corn and soy byproducts, along with sugar, which means they’re more than likely GM in nature and damaging our children.

A number of years ago, Natural News alerted readers to these menacing food products for tiny tots, pivoting specifically on Similac’s Go & Grow formula. The product, which is marketed for infants aged 9 to 24 months, which asserts it comprises healthy nourishment for older babies.

However, as pointed out, the product is almost half composed of corn syrup solids (sugar), with the residual fifty or so per cent composed of soybean oil, soy protein isolate, safflower oil and more sugar in the form of sucrose.

In addition to being a totally harmful product in general, based on these ingredients, Similac Go & Grow is a real freak of nature with all its display of GM ingredients, which are especially detrimental for growing youngsters.

GMO’s has been connected to hormone disruption, gut damage and other difficulties that, again, particularly in children, can lead to a lifetime of long standing health problems.

Nevertheless, Similac isn’t companionless, since almost every leading brand of commercial infant formula is composed mainly of corn, soy, and sugar ingredients, each of which is more than likely GM, owing to the reality that upwards of 90 percent of corn, soy and sugar beet crops planted in the US are GMO’s.

Because of the poisonous repercussions of herbicides, especially glyphosate, owing to its abundant use, as well as other organophosphates and genetically engineered food in non organic commercial formulas, these are not a choice for infant feeding.

In order to make sure the health of our infants and children is not compromised, there is no amount of passable herbicide or GMO that should be in their diets, and beyond just poisoning our children, Abbott, Mead Johnson and Nestle all want to keep this poisoning classified.

Each of these companies exhausted big bucks fighting California’s GMO labelling initiative, Proposition 37, which would have required that infant formulas include warnings about the GMO content.

It must have enraged the companies, and the people that run them – perhaps these mongrels had bitten off more than they can chew, however, the fact is, they clearly have no consideration for human life at all.

It’s an easy reminder that all we are to these companies is cannon fodder, and we’re certainly at the bottom of the food chain, however, we need to embrace the reality that they’re murdering our children, or making them really ill in the process of their fortuity, and money making tactics.

There is no announcement of culpability, and what they’re doing to our food is really iffy, and it’s making some of the public very agitated, however, that’s all it’s doing, without endeavour, nothing can be done about it, however, of course, they have us by the short and curlies, since we’re the buyers of their edibles, and they know we have to consume the food to remain alive.

However, are we surviving at all, or are we all in the process of elimination?

Monsanto among numerous other powerful companies in America is known for its hypocritical business model, and its illustrious past from helping to construct the first atomic bomb, and poisoning more than 5 million Vietnamese with Agent Orange which produced 400,00 deaths and disabilities to its monopoly, and total market control over the world’s foods and seeds.

Not long ago, Monsanto, among numerous other powerful companies, including the big banks and the giant oil companies has joined the so called World Business Council for Sustainable Development, pursuing the United Nations, so called Agenda 21.

The so called Agenda 21 is an Environmental Programme on sustainable development that exhibits concern about the unforeseen catastrophic changes in weather conditions and the environment.

Alongside the growth in the use of pesticides and chemicals that have led to those changes in the environment, Agenda 21 still pokes forward for a more internationalist and concentrated government.

The reviewers of Agenda 21, however, have further conveyed their concerns that Global Sustainability is only a trademark for consolidating power in the United Nations, and making the wealthy 1%, even wealthier at the cost of individual freedom, private property rights, and social and national sovereignty of nations.

However, what’s astonishing is, Monsanto, big banks and the giant oil companies are joining Agenda 21 for Global Sustainability, and its satirical how just a label or a name could have an effect on the hearts and minds of people.

For instance, there used to be a wealth tax in the early 20th century on the wealthiest 1%, and because they had the most affluence they had to pay taxes to preserve services. Then, since the second world war, the tax strain was moved towards the middle class and the working classes.

They used labels to alter and generate this shift of contributions from the super rich to the working class. For example, the inheritance tax was again and again reinforced by numerous people, in both of the chief parties in the United States.

Then the Republican party and the lobbyists for the billionaires came up with an idea, and that was to alter the name from inheritance tax to death tax, and overnight 88% of Americans were immediately against this tax because they thought this would include them whereas prior to this, inheritance usually applied only to really rich people.

Apart from the title death tax, nothing else, in the provisions of the tax law, had altered, only the name or the label of this tax, and that was all that was required to change the minds of nearly all Americans.

When they wanted to start the Iraqi war in 2003, once more, it was tagged as the Iraqi Freedom, and when they want to pass the law to lessen the rights of Americans and subject them to invasive wiretapping, they called it, the Patriot Act, because only non patriots would be opposed to this, seemingly.

So it appears labels are everything. The name is the most significant. The content, the code, the basic intent, and the inclination to manipulate and sway the crowd are beside the point, and they can pass it by people without Americans having time to evaluate and refuse it.

So a curious mind will wonder how the alliance of wicked Monsanto can fuse itself to the worldwide big business coalition, big businesses, NGO’s and shareholders of colossal businesses who control 43% of the nation’s riches, for driving the global sustainability itinerary for the greater good of the planet.

Nevertheless, the WBCSD coalition who clearly doesn’t think the same is celebrating that Monsanto is joining the global business alliance. In fact WBCSD points out how Monsanto, the leading global supplier of biotechnology and modern agriculture can enhance the efficiency, and food quality of the world.

Tell that to 250,000 Indian farmers who have taken their own lives in the last 10 years by drinking Monsanto’s insecticide, or one out of 5 children who are living in poverty in America, and one out of three kids who are suffering from obesity and type 2 diabetes, all thanks to businesses like Monsanto who are appreciated for their big business sense and accomplishments, even at the cost of polluting pesticide free crops with GMO’s, and fighting the will of 93% of Americans to put a label on GMO foods.

So, now we’re back to the Tory MP, he should be red faced following an assertion that diabetes was totally preventable – well, take GMO foods off our supermarket shelves, put an end to administering our cows with hormones, and then treating them with antibiotics to stop them from getting mastitis, which is then conveyed into our milk, and we won’t end up being diabetic.

No wonder antibiotics are no longer working, we take so much of it through the milk that we drink, but the worst thing of all, is that we accept what these corporations tell us.

Nevertheless, the whole thing is fake, it’s not the real McCoy, and these corporations are hypocritical and pretend to be something they’re not, and it’s a mixture of untruths that they harvest to the public.

The public attention is never-ending on the marketing of these commodities that Monsanto publicises. It’s splattered in front of us daily, on our television sets, where they pinpoint how good the products are that they’re offering for sale, and we’re not phased by this at all.

Welcome to the human condition, however, in order to live that human condition, we need to be conditioned, simply by the persons who think that they can personalise us, and the government does that without a blink of their eye.

Not only do they manufacture GMO’s, and put them into our provisions, but now they want to clone us, so that our conduct is such that we will do anything they want us to do.

New studies in cell research have brought up some frightening uncertainties regarding GMO’s, and one of them specifically makes liver failure or cancer seem like child’s play, in contrast to the harsh probabilities that come to light when we start looking at how genetically modified foods are anticipated to have an influence on our DNA.

All kinds of things can change our DNA, for the better or worse, however, it’s been shown that emotions can alter our DNA, and investigation has uncovered that even exercise or chemotherapy can change our DNA. Ancient cultures have known that sound can have an effect on our DNA, and the newest research states that we’re not relegated to a particular future because of our genes, however, it appears that our brains are being rewired through DNA to become new humans.

Our DNA comprises two strands of nucleotides that make up a stair like construction. Each nucleotide contains one of four foundations, adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, a phosphate group and a sugar molecule.

The bases contain nitrogen, which associate in a really fixed way. In one type, the way the four bases connect to each other is really different from how they will assemble in another.

In fact, double stranded RNA (dRNA) GMO produced by Monsanto can supposedly turn off certain gene signals and turn on others. Normally, if you put in a Roundup ready gene into a plant, it needs a protein that can make a Roundup ready plant that can withstand Roundup and still grow.

Nevertheless, the new dRNA can sustain itself without protein synthesis, this permits the dRNA to change the genes.

When mice were fed this dRNA, the liver totally altered its cell arrangement, and the mice grew strangely. The same results were found when the dRNA was attached to human cells.

Apparently, this GMO food can be turning on cancer causing genes, or quiet our immune systems. In other ways, the wheat we’re absorbing is so different from organic wheat that it’s causing us to be dependent on it.

Some are calling it bioterrorism.

GMO food plants make these new dRNA so that the gene formation is silenced or magnified in really precise ways. There are no assessments of dRNA, and how it will have an effect on our genes by the FDA, and Monsanto is working on dRNA technology, purchasing corporations that are expanding, so that it can be issued as the next round of GMO food they release unwittingly on us.

Researchers in Australia and New Zealand are exposing this matter, and inhalation of the GMO companies sprays can alter the way our bodies manufacture DNA and related proteins.

The most terrifying thing is that this dRNA can translate through the offspring of the people exposed to it. In Canada, new investigation is showing that pregnant women’s blood tests contained traces of toxins found in GMO foods.

Who knows what the long term consequences are of messing with our genetic structure, however, they can’t be good, bearing in mind the track record that Monsanto has so far.

The discovery that GE toxins and as well herbicide residues are being absorbed into consumers and embryonic baby’s blood, displays that organic and GE free foods should be the first choice for families and particularly expectant women.

There are schemes to launch this dRNA into our food, medicines, vaccines, and pesticide sprays. Unless you want to play a game of wait and see with your own genetic development, it might be time to go all organic until more investigation is looked into on the issue of GMO and DNA adjustment.

Nevertheless, how much of our organic is in fact organic?

When is USDA Organic not organic? More often than you probably comprehend.

The USDA keeps a National List of inorganic commodities that can legally go into foods marked as organic. Covers for those delicious USDA Organic sausages can come from conventionally raised animals that have been fed antibiotics.

The hops in your most liked organic beer can be showered with all manner of chemical pesticides and fertilisers. Strawberries can be marked as organic even if they had their start in a traditional nursery.

As stated by USDA regulations, if 95 percent of a commodity is made up of organic components, it can be called organic. If it’s 70 percent organic, the label can read as made with organic ingredients.

The Obama management has had a schizophrenic association with agriculture, on one hand, snuggling up to the likes of Monsanto, by supporting for GM crops, and on the other hand winning praise from small farm and organic promoters for programmes like – Know your farmer, now your food, and the White House organic garden.

Should we be frightened when somebody mentions the word sustainability, and is it a route that we should go down?

No, of course not. It’s a move by the government to have power over everything and everybody around them, and it stinks to high heaven. Their only motivation for sustainability is to have authority by design in an endeavour to take over the world, and that’s what they mean by sustainability.

This is actually a plan for changing us into a worldwide community, what it in fact means is that they will typically give each person with a new individuality in a global community, and that global community will come before your identity because you will no longer be a citizen of a specific country or place.

The concept will be that one’s individuality goes beyond geography or political borders, and that the planetary human community is interdependent and that the whole of humankind is essentially one, and we will enjoy popular social movements as a World Citizen movement – a One World Government, and they’ve started indoctrinating us already, and have been doing so for some time.

In education, the word that is most frequently used to illustrate a worldview, or a set of values on the way to which education is established. The phrase global society is occasionally used to demonstrate the global studies set of learning objectives for students to get them ready for global citizenship.

It’s a truly superb introduction to the most secretive strategy, cooked up by tyrannical aristocrats in the last century. To take total leadership of your future in this one.

At one time this was disparaged as too weird to be true. Now it’s painfully clear how serious they really are.

Agenda 21 is an all inclusive Orwellian proposal for your life, cooked up by industrious underlings at the United Nations – where you live, how you travel, what you may do for work, what sort of dwelling you call home – everything about your future has been defined.

Science fiction?

No – Agenda 21 is probably being implemented in and around your community right now.

Just ask your local or regional planning department, which most people pay no attention to, whether they center their planning for sustainable development – they most unquestionably do.

Nevertheless, what does this vague word sustainable really mean, and who said they have to plan around someone’s conception of sustainable? And who ends up interpreting what is sustainable, and what is not?

And are YOU and YOUR family sustainable?

Agenda 21 is a strategy for every facet of your life in the 21st century, where you work, what work you’re permitted to do, and how you get there, have all been planned in advance. Small towns will be got rid of, and returned to nature, where the common man is not permitted.

Everybody excluding the crème de la crème will be packed into beehive like mega cities, remote nature. This is the sustainable society of the future, and they’re doing this as we speak, why do you think people are being herded from London to Hull on the assumption that it’s because they can’t afford the rents, so being moved up North is a much better answer to the problem.

This is hardly science fiction, this is the face of the exceptionally nonfictional Agenda 21, carefully concealed from opinion until it’s too late to combat it, and yet, the United Nations has publicised it in an official manual, and it’s being implemented in regions all across the United States, and it’s in all likelihood being talked about and implemented to some level where you are right now.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt was Senior Policy Advisor in the US Department of Education, and in the 1980’s she exposed government happenings held back from the public. Her inside expertise is a rare understanding into cunning, scheming of globalist elitists and their proposals for what lies ahead.

It reverberates like science fiction, but it’s not. It relates to the real life effects of an appalling plan which the United Nations and associated organisations are contriving within the United States, and this is all under the innocent camouflage of sustainable development, environmental protection, and endangered species protection.

Under this plan, you and your family will in due course be grouped into a beehive like, or sustainable apartments in large cities, and huge connecting swaths of the now occupied and farmed countryside are to be depopulated and made into human free zones.

What is described as sustainable is determined by unelected and unaccountable United Nations officials working at the instruction of robber barons and global corporations.

Where you may live, where and how you will work, where you may travel, all has already been carefully planned by anti-human Malthusian, would be autocrats and public servants. They work their skillfulness by working their way into the government at the local level, where their positions are normally unelected and unobserved by the majority of the public.

ICLEI is a United Nations associated organisation assigned with subordinating your property, liberty, agriculture, and transportation rights to global government. Members of your local board of directors may semi secretly belong to his treasonous administration.

ICLEI searches to implement Agenda 21, a scheme assembled by the United Nations to rule almost every facet of your life in the not too distant future.

AGENDA 21 is a plan for your life in the 21st century. It’s meant to surround almost every facet of life in one way or another.

It comprises elegant particulars about where you may live, how you may work, whether or not you can drive a car et cetera. It may sound like science fiction, however, it’s not.

Even though it was never asked for or elected on by you, it’s being implemented right now, and it’s mortally grim. The procedure used has been to get around elected officials for the most part.

Alternatively, unelected councils and substructures have silently slid their global plans to your local governments, telling them, this is what everybody is doing, and you too should be on the committee, and corruption, in the form of grants et cetera are normally also used to convince your local officials.

It might be called sustainable development to the general public, but to Marxists, it’s the new and dynamic way to slowly contrive Marxist totalitarianism into your family life, which is all dressed in green – Bright green environmentalism, which aims to give profitability in the eco sustainable way, through the use of new technologies and better design.

However, it’s in fact Green anarchism, which puts a specific importance on environmental issues. We are becoming an anarchist society between humans and non- humans.

Without alluding to it by name, I’m relating the ultimate intentional blossoming of neo-environmentalism and UN Agenda 21 into a autocratic global superstate, a neo-environmental Garden of Eden, where the corruptness of free enterprise and free choice will be wiped out.

In what lies ahead, you will have no choice but to live in a beehive like a planned community, where what you eat, how you work, and what you’re permitted to live in is all determined for you by the global dictatorship. Nature and man will be split into separate zones, where only the wealthy are permitted to cross.

The average man will at most be able to view nature from a distance, and your life will be planned to the smallest detail to make you, in their estimation, sustainable!

You may have impression that Communism and Marxism expired with the apparent abandonment of communist beliefs of China, and the slump of Marxism, Stalinism with the previous Soviet Socialist kingdom. Never mind that the most shocking and massive destruction of the planet in the history of humanity happened under the umbrella of Communism and Marxism.

I need only to refer to Chernobyl, and deforestation by acid rain to bring back those unearthly memories of Communist environmental disaster. The Communists are back, and this time they’re dressed in green.

This is a warning, a sign of things to come, and in the flash of an eye the environment that we know will be gone, hijacked by a totalitarian elite, and they will not relent until they have a New World Order.

For the first time ever, the unknown itinerary of the planet’s merciless super class has been exposed in crisp detail. This accounts how men of control and power have worked in secret for centuries to initiate a brutal world government.

You can absorb how this global oligarchy commands the population through drug trafficking. Money laundering, phased terror attacks, press advertising and debt. Lawbreaking controllers have successfully controlled the world, and are now in the last stages of strengthening their power.

It’s an unseen kingdom, a New World Order, and it’s defined as an incriminating indictment of the globalists through their own words, and documents. Global dictatorship isn’t coming. It’s already here.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s a conspiracy fact, and now the New World Order is out in the open, all official, and extraordinary living colour.

Unelected paper shufflers are setting up geographical mergers under one superstate. Observe their strategy for a worldwide tax, and a cashless surveillance society in which every man, woman and child will be micro chipped at birth.

It can’t be thought about as a conspiracy theory anymore, because it’s actually happening. We’re actually watching the world go up in smoke around us, and every day there is another new, thrilling development that only, in my mind anyhow, strengthens the notion that it’s all being done by design.

There are numerous single events that, at first glance, appear to be remote occurrences, however, in actuality, they’re all part of the mother conspiracy. But what is this mother conspiracy one might ask?

Many people identify it as the Illuminati, or the secret societies. Others refer to the colluders as the worldwide elite, or even their more familiar name, The Bilderberg Group.

Still others are convinced that these people are Communists who are carrying out the agenda of implanting a worldwide communist government. What they’re doing is working together to carry out their agenda of a one world government via the United Nations.

There have been many different questions driving many different discussions, however, there’s one in particular that merits special thought because it’s the one that may seal the destiny of the human race. This is the Global Warming debate, which is simply called climate change now.

There isn’t one problem that’s discussed with as much enthusiasm and disagreement as man made Global Warming, and too many people are convinced that the supposed eruption of extraordinary weather events are caused by man’s activities and use of fossil fuels, and because of this, they’re being led to believe that governments must take extreme endeavours to put a stop to it.

Denying that there is Global Warming, is now compared with being a Nazi, and in fact someone in fact called for the imprisonment of those who contradict the so called knowledge of global warming, and it’s astonishing how they can now cite us of being a Nazi, and intimidating us with imprisonment for opposing them.

There has been a huge push in education to persuade young people that the United States and its capitalistic network are the main cause of Global Warming.

People are being conditioned to believe that the only way to rescue the planet is if the human race gives up their individuality in favour of the collective, while permitting the government to control what is best for us.

Seemingly Global communism is the only answer for Global warming…

No, there’s no conspiracy here, they’re just telling us what they’re going to do, through the use of mental advertising. Trying to persuade a great many people that we are indeed accountable for Global Warming and we need to pay higher taxes, and that we need to give up our rights and allow the government to run our lives in order to stop it.

There is only one drawback with all of this, it’s all a trick designed to carry out their chief policy initiative – the human depopulation agenda, better known as Agenda 21.

This is the number one bone of contention motivating the global warming argument, because the left believes that there are far too many people on the planet and that humankind is just a cancer to the earth.

For those who may not be familiar with Agenda 21, it essentially involves every policy initiative that pushes the world towards entire UN control. It involves everything from gun control to parental rights.

The strategy is to strip all individuals of their rights to private property, driving us into closely packed population centres, and to lead us like livestock. They as well plan to drastically lessen the human population from its current number of about seven billion to about 500,000,000, because they fearful that human beings consume too much, and the population growth is too much for the planet to handle – hey presto, and you have Armageddon!

For those who refuse to entertain that anybody could think such a thing, let’s look at this quote from the Initiative for the United Nations, Eco 92 Earth Charter.

“The present vast over population, now far beyond the world carrying capacity cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilisation and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction in the numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. ”

According to an authorised UN document regarding the agenda on fighting global warming, abortion and birth control, this was in fact part of the human depopulation agenda.

They have now determined that these methods are not effective enough, and more drastic measures must be taken to bring human population levels down. Does this also mean that the Ebola virus is a scourge that they have been putting upon people to also bring down the human population as well?

The Ebola virus mysteriously materialised in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1976, and has sporadically reappeared in the region without explanation ever since.

Accepted medical professionals consider that eating monkeys who are contaminated with Ebola is the starting method of transferral. Nevertheless, this is accepted speculation because the research-based populace agrees that the natural reservoir of the virus is uncertain and therefore knowledge of transmission is only hypothesized.

In July 2012, an unexpected eruption of the Ebola virus surfaced, eliminating 14 people. People were told to be watchful, to steer clear of shaking of hands, and not to bury those that had died of the virus, not so different from the plague in fact.

There are numerous substantial truths which we don’t challenge, and which still we don’t completely trust. In spite of publicity and frenzy, there is cause for concern.

What we’re not certain about is if the concern should be about Ebola, or other even more menacing concerns.

Ebola is an untreatable disease that is really a bio weapon that was produced in a CIA laboratory. Books and movies like ‘Outbreak’, are in fact predictive programming propaganda to draw out a reaction from the spectator that these things are fiction, and that they’re not factual.

Normally things that are in fact true are considered as false, and there are numerous other hidden messages and controls that are being waged when we’re viewing our television sets, read a magazine or watch movies, and music video’s.

In fact, predictive programming through mass media, cinema and television control your interpretation of the real world without you even being aware of it.

So, when something shocking like the Government producing a bio weapon that gets out and threatens to eliminate almost all of the world, you dismiss the content as fiction, because you saw it in a film, however, it’s not entirely fiction, far from it.

A further bio weapon predictive programming piece in the 1980’s star covered B movie Virus bomb shelled at the box office, however, hit the gold mine on the predictive propaganda Richter scale.

The movie was employed to subliminally spur vaccine propaganda after the 1976 Swine Flu fraud that alluded to generate a New World after the destruction of humankind by some kind of contagion, however, there are other appalling misogynist pieces of information and surprising facts.

In fact, cinema honestly does emulate life, in more ways than nearly all perceive, and the beautiful people divulge evidence. Like how movie Sovlent Green disclosed 1992’s Agenda 21 in 1973, and the truly evil concealed agenda, ’Sovlent Green is people. ’

What should be crying out is that the Club Of Rome and the United Nations killers are depopulating the world. That is the true real world big secret disclosed in Sovlent Green. The hidden agenda of the United Nations Agenda 21, which is all concealed in plain sight. Much truth is revealed. In fact viewed. Actual occurrences are invisible, yet in plain sight.

We believe movies are purely for pleasure. Inferior entertainment at that, as far as the movie ‘Virus’ is concerned. Movies, television, music, et cetera are all escapisms for our amusement, however, they’re not.

Whatever the ominous story line, we, the entertained spectator thinks that the government would never let anything like what happened in Virus, or Outbreak happen in real life.

The government would never produce a bio weapon and use it on its own people… right? No, wrong. They have and they are.

Sadly, the facts are truly far worse than any fiction, my friends.