Why did Lady Di die?

[Iam]

I only just looked at the options

 

[snouty warthog]

it just doesn't ring true.

fraid I have to agree with this. It doesn't to me, either. the first thing that seems weird to me is a royal chauffeur being drunk. surely line #one in their contract would be 'no drinking on duty'? the second thing is 'who gets into a car with a drunken driver?'

applying occam's razor, as another user has; a drunken Royal chauffeur just seems to be a strange prospect. as does speeding to escape papparazzi- there were plenty of photos of Di and Dodi in the newspapers every day leading up to the crash. in fact, I seem to remember them being on the cover most days, with a fairytale headline about her finally finding happiness.
why would she be so keen to avoid a few more photos?

I remember noticing the sheer amount of coverage she got in the press in the six days leading up to the crash. I remember at the time thinking it was a bit odd- I know the royals are in the papers a lot, but she was front page every day in the tabloids... to me, that is a curious personal footnote.

I don't know if she was murdered, and I haven't voted, but the official version seems bloody fishy to me. like quite a few official versions, in fact, but that's a whole different Kelly, sorry, kettle of fish...

I object to this term 'conspiraloon'. I find it a bit patronising. If is going to be used used as a term of abuse against anyone who questions the official version of events, I think that stifles debate. I think questioning what you are told in the media is a healthy trait, particularly in these times of 'spin' and propaganda.

 

[editor]

applying occam's razor, as another user has; a drunken Royal chauffeur just seems to be a strange prospect.

So what do you think really happened then?

Go on. Get out your Occam's razor and describe this scenario that is provably more probable than the 'official version' of events.

And as for finding the term 'conspiraloon' patronising, it's not half as patronising as having a handful of obsessed conspiracy fans posting up an endless succession of laughable yarns from utterly bonkers sites and declaring them to be the 'truth' while the rest of us, presumably., wallow in stupid ignorance.

 

[laptop]

The first thing that seems weird to me is a royal chauffeur being drunk. surely line #one in their contract would be 'no drinking on duty'?

As I said to a senior policeman a couple of years ago: "Your underlings - it's their duty as human beings to ignore what you say, isn't it?" He agreed, ruefully

the second thing is 'who gets into a car with a drunken driver?'

A drunken passenger!

Not to mention the possibility of Columbia's finest and whitest export being involved.

applying occam's razor, as another user has; a drunken Royal chauffeur just seems to be a strange prospect. as does speeding to escape papparazzi- there were plenty of photos...

That's not Occam's razor, that's your idea of what makes a narrative that's pleasing to you. The whole point of Occam's razor is to counter the bias toward pleasing narratives.

Occam's razor says: do not introduce entities unnecessarily.

The options are:

• Drunk yuppies die in speeding car. All known and well understood entities here.
• The above + new entity: plotters, with files, hacksaws, etc - and new entity: the ability to persuade dozens or hundreds of others to keep schtumm.
• The above + owls/lizards

I remember noticing the sheer amount of coverage she got in the press in the six days leading up to the crash. I remember at the time thinking it was a bit odd- I know the royals are in the papers a lot, but she was front page every day in the tabloids... to me, that is a curious personal footnote.

The woman whose image would put 200,000 on a tabloid's sales was on holiday in Paris with the son of Mohammed el-Fayed. This is not sufficient explanation for you?

I object to this term 'conspiraloon'. I find it a bit patronising. If is going to be used used as a term of abuse against anyone who questions the official version of events, I think that stifles debate. I think questioning what you are told in the media is a healthy trait, particularly in these times of 'spin' and propaganda.

It's accurate. Conspiraloons exhibit all the signs of disordered thought that are diagnostic of psychosis.

Questioning what you are told is indeed healthy and a lot of the people who do it best have job-descriptions that say "journalist" or "historian".

 

[JHE]

fraid I have to agree with this. It doesn't to me, either. the first thing that seems weird to me is a royal chauffeur being drunk. surely line #one in their contract would be 'no drinking on duty'? the second thing is 'who gets into a car with a drunken driver?'

He wasn't just obliged by his contract of employment not to be pissed. He was also obliged by criminal law not to drive pissed.

People getting into cars with pissed drivers... happens every fuckin' day. Carnage on the roads is common. Some passengers may know their drivers are pissed. Probably, many don't realise how pissed the driver is - and are too pissed themselves even to wonder about it.

Is normal, innit.

 

[Azrael23]

"If your in a car accident and your put in an ambulance, which then drives past 3 hospitals and goes no faster than 30mph, and you die on the way.... does it count as murder or is it an accident?"

So is this true?

Is it really just coincedence that all the security cameras along that route were malfunctioning?

Theres so much controversy surrounding the event, that everyone should be asking themselves whether they can know for sure either way.

 

[snouty warthog]

As I said to a senior policeman a couple of years ago: "Your underlings - it's their duty as human beings to ignore what you say, isn't it?" He agreed, ruefully

ignoring someone is one thing; breaking two laws while on duty (drink driving/speeding) while also breaking the terms of your contract, which would have been a sacking offence, seems to me to be rather more serious.

The woman whose image would put 200,000 on a tabloid's sales was on holiday in Paris with the son of Mohammed el-Fayed. This is not sufficient explanation for you?

Diana- still on holiday! a scoop!
I understand she sells papers, the royals sell papers, but it just seemed odd that she was front page every day. I don't usually notice the tabloids, but this is something I did notice, it seemed odd. and then she was dead, suddenly. maybe it means nothing. to me, it just seemed like there had been this build up to her death- everyone was talking about her and dodi and their new happiness. was this part of some conspiratorial plan? I haven't got a scooby. it just seemed odd, to me, at the time.

It's accurate. Conspiraloons exhibit all the signs of disordered thought that are diagnostic of psychosis.

is that from DSM-IV then...? hmmmm...*

Questioning what you are told is indeed healthy and a lot of the people who do it best have job-descriptions that say "journalist" or "historian".

I disagree, I think (cleaned up version) some journalists are not averse to telling lies, or printing what the right wing head of the media corporation they work for happens to want in the paper that day. newspapers are a business, at the end of the day. they have to sell. and to quote Bukowski- 'people don't want the truth. they want pretty lies'. a simplification of the point, but you get my drift.

The truth is, everyone has a bias. me, you, the news, official inquiries... I believe it is important to form your own version of what is true, based on various accounts, and not swallow another person's account wholesale. even if they are a distinguished historian or journalist...

* DSM-IV- the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published in America

 

[laptop]

ignoring someone is one thing; breaking two laws while on duty (drink driving/speeding) while also breaking the terms of your contract, which would have been a sacking offence, seems to me to be rather more serious.

Happens all the time. No new entities required.

some journalists are not averse to telling lies, or printing what the right wing head of the media corporation they work for happens to want in the paper that day.

How bias happens is much more complicated than that.

But where did I make any comment about journalists in general? Or historians in general?

You're imposing your own "pretty lie" on what's going on and not reading or understanding what's in front of you.

 

[snouty warthog]

But where did I make any comment about journalists in general? Or historians in general?

you didn't mate, and indeed, neither did I. my point is that no matter how learned your source is, or how well informed, ultimately you have to make up your own mind. and if you swallow one person's opinion whole, it may be that later, you get indigestion

 

[laptop]

that no matter how learned your source is, or how well informed, ultimately you have to make up your own mind.

And my point is that there are rules - decision procedures - to follow when weighing up sources and accounts.

Failure to apply these will take you off into pretty lies and psychotic ramblings.

 

[snouty warthog]

And my point is that there are rules - decision procedures - to follow when weighing up sources and accounts.

Failure to apply these will take you off into pretty lies and psychotic ramblings.

surely everyone applies 'decision procedures' when weighing up sources and accounts. it is a natural part of human thinking- consideration of various arguments. even psychotics weigh up the various arguments in their decision making process. so I don't get your point. your point appears to be that some people do not follow rules or 'decision procedures' when weighing up sources, and this makes them prone to 'psychotic rambling'. I disagree with this- I think 'psychotic rambling' as you call it, is far more complex. also, I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. I haven't seen any 'psychotic rambling' in this thread, either from people who believe that Di was murdered, or from people who believe she wasn't. or indeed the fence-sitters...

 

[editor]

Is it really just coincedence that all the security cameras along that route were malfunctioning? .

So what are you saying here? 'They' knew the accident was going to happen, so 'they' arranged for all the security cameras to stop working, yes?

 

[snouty warthog]

Happens all the time. No new entities required.

I am curious as to your sources about this 'happening all the time'. if it happens all the time, then surely the royals should be pranging off lamp-posts and street signs all the time, with their hopeless, inebriated chauffeurs... myself, I am not aware of any other crashes involving British royal personages, fatal or not...

 

[Azrael23]

So what are you saying here? 'They' knew the accident was going to happen, so 'they' arranged for all the security cameras to stop working, yes?

I`m not "saying" anything. I`m pointing out information.

 

[editor]

I`m not "saying" anything. I`m pointing out information.

So you have no opinion either way?

What's your source for the claim that every single CCTV camera was malfunctioning by the way?
And how many cameras should have been operating?
Have you asked what happened to the cameras?
Were they normally reliable?

And if - as you are clearly suggesting (no need to be coy!) there was some sort of 'fixing' going on, how come there haven't been teams of CCTV operators, mechanics, technical staff, supervisors and other related operatives telling people that the cameras were nobbled that night?

After all, I can't see any reason why all those people would keep quiet if something out of the unusual happened.

Can you?

 

[editor]

....if it happens all the time, then surely the royals should be pranging off lamp-posts and street signs all the time, with their hopeless, inebriated chauffeurs... myself, I am not aware of any other crashes involving British royal personages, fatal or not...

That's more luck than judgement, what with Princess Anne notching up several speeding violations over the years.

 

[laptop]

I am curious as to your sources about this 'happening all the time'. if it happens all the time, then surely the royals should be pranging off lamp-posts and street signs all the time, with their hopeless, inebriated chauffeurs... myself, I am not aware of any other crashes involving British royal personages, fatal or not...

Drivers drive pissed all the time, in contravention ot their contracts and criminal law. I seem to remember a Chief Constable... certainly Chief Constables have been done for speeding... and that's certainly someone with more to lose than someone who's a chauffeur for some yuppie that married into royalty.

 

[snouty warthog]

on a slightly O/T note, I wish that Mohammed Al Fayed would let it lie. If, as he claims, the royal family and MI5 are implicated, it seems unlikely he is going to to get any justice without bringing down a large part of the british establishment. It’s not gonna happen.

I have great sympathy with him for the loss of his son and possible future daughter-in-law, but he’s not gonna get the result he wants, and whatever happens, his son will remain dead…

he needs to grieve and move on, IMO...

 

[JHE]

myself, I am not aware of any other crashes involving British royal personages, fatal or not...

Are you also not aware of the umpteen crashes involving non-royal personages? Are you unaware that thousands of people die in those crashes? Unfortunately, it does happen every day.

Even tip-top poshos are vulnerable to traffic accidents, especially when the driver is rat-arsed and speeding.

 

[118118]

At least the claim that she wasn't to marry a Musilm isn't 100000000 miles a way from everyday life
No comedy option? I guess

 

[editor]

he needs to grieve and move on, IMO...

Shame that the same can't be said about conspiraloons, eh?

 

[Azrael23]

So you have no opinion either way?

What's your source for the claim that every single CCTV camera was malfunctioning by the way?
And how many cameras should have been operating?
Have you asked what happened to the cameras?
Were they normally reliable?

And if - as you are clearly suggesting (no need to be coy!) there was some sort of 'fixing' going on, how come there haven't been teams of CCTV operators, mechanics, technical staff, supervisors and other related operatives telling people that the cameras were nobbled that night?

After all, I can't see any reason why all those people would keep quiet if something out of the unusual happened.

Can you?

I don`t have a view on it, i`ve not done enough research. I definitely have a lot of questions however. Seems no one on here is willing to help me though.

Have you ever helped anyone editor? I reckon your probably a lot nicer in real life than your online uber-ego. But then again, I`m a sucker for blue eyes.

BTW Puerile playground names like conspiraloon do nothing to help anyone, they just make you all look like tosspots tbqh.

 

[equationgirl]

But according to the O'Hara Research Paradigm (illegal bit removed)™ that makes him a state asset

It's illegal to use the registered trademark sign unless the trademark exists, I'd edit that post sharpish to avoid trouble.


And it's pointless to use TM after the registered trademark sign anyway

 

[laptop]

It's illegal to use the registered trademark sign unless the trademark exists

What, even in the clear absence of any attempt falsely to assert ownership of said mark

* Goes off to see about registering the phrase *

 

[equationgirl]

And in what classifications are you registering the mark, sir?

 

[laptop]

And in what classifications are you registering the mark, sir?

It's a toss-up between Class 30 (I particularly like the inclusion of sago) and entertainment...

 

[editor]

I don`t have a view on it, i`ve not done enough research. I definitely have a lot of questions however. Seems no one on here is willing to help me though.

You might find people would be more than willing to help you with your questions if you took the time and trouble to do some basic background research first, rather than expecting people to do it for you all the time.

So far your 'questions' have consisted of rather clueless idle speculation, barely worth the effort of answering.

You've mumbled some nonsense about all the CCTV questions being mysteriously turned off, yet as soon as more information was requested about this remarkable claim you refuse to back it up.

So were all the CCTV cameras nobbled or not? Did you check this claim with a credible source?
Or did you make it up?

 

[equationgirl]

It's a toss-up between Class 30 (I particularly like the inclusion of sago) and entertainment...

And what of Class 42?

 

[laptop]

And what of Class 42?

But wouldn't that be a misleading mark?

I quite fancy 420142, though...

 

[equationgirl]

Not 420008? I think that would be more appropriate.