Source – theguardian.com
– “Diana dreamed of becoming a renowned documentary film-maker. In the months before she died, she had discussed plans to forge a career in TV, shining a spotlight on global issues so that her charities could then help. She hoped to make a programme every two years, each one the centrepiece of a humanitarian campaign. And having raised the awareness of a problem – such as illiteracy or Aids – a structure would be put in place to tackle it:
The Princess, who died in a Paris car crash in 1997, repeatedly made clear her belief that she would be the victim of an Establishment conspiracy.
Her fashion designer friend Roberto Devorik explained that the Princess had spoken about how she would be killed in a fake accident.
“They will do it when I am in a small plane, in a car when I am driving, or in a helicopter,” she is said to have told Mr Devorik. He also revealed how Diana disliked having bodyguards because she felt they spied on her.
The article, in next month’s edition of US magazine Vanity Fair, reports how Diana voiced her suspicions on a trip to Rome with Argentinian Mr Devorik.
Diana was convinced she would be murdered.
The magazine repeats the story – reported in the Daily Express in 2005 – of how the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace in 1997 provoked fears for her life.
At the time, she was on holiday in the Mediterranean on the yacht Jonikal, owned by Mohamed Al Fayed, the father of her lover Dodi Fayed.
Dodi’s bodyguard Lee Sansum found her on the deck early in the morning, gazing out to sea. He said she asked him: “Do you think they’ll do that to me?” She and Dodi were killed seven weeks later.
Philip is claimed to have threatened to remove her HRH title if she failed to behave properly.
But the Princess is said to have responded by informing the Duke that her title as Lady, referring to the lineage of the Spencer family, was a lot older than his. Ms Brown also claims Philip cajoled Princes William and Harry to walk with him behind Diana’s coffin at her funeral, overruling objections from her brother Earl Spencer.
She claims Diana dreamed of becoming a renowned documentary film-maker. In the months before she died, she had discussed plans to forge a career in TV, shining a spotlight on global issues so that her charities could then help.
She hoped to make a programme every two years, each one the centrepiece of a humanitarian campaign. And having raised the awareness of a problem – such as illiteracy or Aids – a structure would be put in place to tackle it.
Diana, who once described herself as “thick as a plank” and had no academic qualifications, planned out her TV future with writer and businesswoman Shirley Conran. The bestselling author said the Princess wanted professional fulfilment, and wanted to show she was a woman of substance rather than just a celebrity.
It is claimed she was inspired to consider film-making after watching a BBC film about her visit to Angola to highlight the horrors of landmines.
But what many will regard as a betrayal of her friendship – and a bid to cash in on the 10th anniversary of Diana’s death – is her claim that the relationship with Dodi was a fling designed to annoy Buckingham Palace.
Ms Brown says that in the weeks Diana was enjoying her romance with Dodi, she was “on the look-out” for a rich, new husband, preferably one with his own jet.
Ms Brown writes: “In August of 1997, Diana was seeking to replace what she had possessed as a Princess with a superstar’s version of the same. What she was really seeking was a guy with a Gulfstream.”
She claims the relationship was sparked partly by him lavishing expensive gifts on his lover.
The Princess, she adds, also wanted to upset the Royals by having a relationship with someone they would not approve of – a Muslim.
But Mr Al Fayed hit out at the book, saying there is a wealth of evidence that proves the couple were in love and planning to marry.
He dismissed Ms Brown’s work as a “cynical and disgraceful” attempt to make money out of falsehoods. “This is a total disgrace,” he said.
“She is making money – a lot of money – telling stories which are not true. Princess Diana and Dodi were in love and planning to spend the rest of their lives together.
“You could see it in their faces and hear it in their voices and we have seen all the other evidence to prove it.”
Mr Al Fayed, who believes Diana and Dodi were murdered in a conspiracy orchestrated by the Royal Family, said: “Why do people keep saying these things? We have been through it all before and it is just a cynical way of making a profit.
“This is just part of the campaign against me and against everybody who loved Diana. I will carry on until we get to the truth.”
Unlawful Killing – the film the British won’t get to see
Three days ago, the Rebel Site got taken offline by its hosting firm under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The offense: I had republished the 2011 British documentary “Unlawful Killing” produced by Allied Star, a London-based film company owned by Egyptian billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Al-Fayed. The documentary implicates – amongst other things – the British royal family in the murder of the couple and its cover-up.
Youtube and Vimeo had already deleted the video a few weeks earlier, forcing me to host it directly on the Rebel Site. Two emails sent to me shortly after by the lawyers of my hosting firm unfortunately got intercepted by the spam filter. In those emails they advised me that they had received a complaint by a London based law firm, claiming the hosting of the video was in breach of their client’s copyrights. Since I didn’t receive the emails I obviously couldn’t comply with their request, forcing my hosting company of 7.5 years to disable the site.
Grudgingly, I deleted the video as demanded to get the site back online as soon as possible. However, I sent a letter back to the lawyers, with a 10 days deadline to provide written evidence that the plaintiff’s law firm was acting on behalf of the copyright owner, Allied Star. I also sent an email to Mohamed Al-Fayed, asking for permission to publish the film. The reply of his office was swift. It confirmed that they had requested the London law firm to make me take down the video. The only reason they gave was that the film had been taken off the market.
It becomes clear, when watching the documentary, that Dodi’s father deeply loved his son and was shattered by his death. Why would he spend millions to produce and promote a documentary on the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death and shortly later take it off the market without giving much reason? The only explanation that makes sense is that he has been put under enormous pressure to do so. Not only has he been bullied to take his film off the market, but the blackmailers made it his problem to prevent others from republishing it.
Personally, I don’t respond well to bullying. I hate bullies and fight them with all available means. Thankfully I’m not alone. In this case of cyber-bullying, resistance is not only civil duty, but easy. Be warned though! It would be illegal to locate a copy of the “Unlawful Killing” documentary via any BitTorrent site and distribute it to as many people as possible. It would be illegal to burn CDs and pass them to all your friends. It would be illegal to upload the video to video hosting sites under its own or slightly altered name. And it would be illegal to create a torrent of your own on BitTorrent sites and share it for other people to download. But it is not illegal, to publish this article, share, email and republish it on your blog, and that’s exactly what I’m asking all of my readers to do. Make it go viral.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
PREVIEW ONE: –
PREVIEW 2: –
My documentary about the Diana inquest will be shown everywhere but the UK. Here’s why
Article by Keith Allen
Published: 07th May 2011
The internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana, thereby allowing others to dismiss my documentary as mad.
Deriding its critics as mad is an age-old British establishment trick. My “inquest of the inquest” film contains footage of Diana recalling how the royals wanted her consigned to a mental institution, and the inquest coroner repeatedly questioning the sanity of anyone who wondered if the crash was more than an accident. His chief target was Mohamed Al Fayed, a man I once profiled for a Channel 4 documentary. Before I met him, I’d half-believed the media caricature of him as a madman, driven nuts by the death of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having planned the 1997 crash. However, I found a man who was sane and funny but frustrated that Britain wouldn’t hold an inquest into his son’s death. Michael Mansfield QC thought it unfair too, and fought for one to be held; which was why the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.
Long before the inquest started, the eminently sane Mansfield had persuaded me that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the crash, and signs of a cover-up by the authorities. Many journalists agreed, but as the inquest drew near, I noticed that British newspapers (several of which had regularly run “Was Diana Murdered?” pieces) suddenly fell into line, and started insisting that the inquest was a waste of time. They raised no protest when virtually all the key French witnesses refused to participate, nor did they find it odd that not one senior royal was ordered to appear, even though Diana had stated in a lawyer’s note that the Windsors were planning an “accident” to her car. Nor did they raise the issue of possible bias when legal proceedings involving the integrity of the royal family were to be heard in the royal courts of justice before a coroner who’d sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
I felt the need to raise it, so I asked every major UK broadcaster (BBC, ITV, C4, Five, Sky) to commission a TV documentary about the inquest. But they refused even to contemplate such a suggestion, so Associated Rediffusion and I began filming and financing it ourselves. Shortly before the inquest began, Fayed offered to fund our project, so we could make a feature-length cinema documentary instead. We agreed, on condition that we would report events in the way we saw them, and the deal was struck.
Unlawful Killing is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but a provable conspiracy after the crash. A conspiracy organised not by a single scheming arch-fiend, but collectively by the British establishment – judges, lawyers, politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors – all of whom have been appointed to their positions because they are “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 whose evidence contradicts the official narrative.
Consider just a fraction of what transpired. Over 100 significant witnesses were not called to the inquest, or refused to appear. Blood tests allegedly proving the drunkenness of the driver Henri Paul were deemed “biologically inexplicable” by a toxicologist. A British crash expert found that Diana’s seat belt had not been working. And so on.
Strangest of all was the media coverage of the verdict. Inquest evidence showed conclusively that the crash was caused by an unidentified white Fiat Uno and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were certainly not paparazzi, because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the crash. The jury understood this, bringing in a verdict of “unlawful killing” by unidentified “following vehicles”; yet within seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had blamed the paparazzi, and the rest of the media meekly followed suit. Which is why – three years on – barely anyone realises what the jury’s troubling verdict really was.
Why is the film being premiered next week at Cannes, three years after the inquest ended? Because British lawyers insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated. So rather than butcher the film, or risk legal action, we’re showing it in France, then the US, and everywhere except the UK. Pity, because at a time when the mindless sugar rush of the royal wedding has been sending British Rrepublicans into a diabetic coma, it could act as a welcome antidote.