so what is Diana's 'Final' secret?
stephen graham
minions helping to pay for the Royal Family to live in the style they are
used to, including Diana, I think the general population should be offered
the facts too - and not just let Paul milk his letter collection for all its
worth. personally, i think the scandal of rape would be strong enough reason
to only drop hints...
Chacal
<cucko...@cuckooland.plus.com> writes
Obviously 'some families' think they are above the law. If someone said
there was a rape in your household or mine the police would come to
investigate. Those in power feel they are in a position to get away with
everything. (We still haven't found out who was directly responsible for
Dr. Kelly's 'suicide'..)
banana
<cucko...@cuckooland.plus.com> writes
>paul burrell knows and its seems most of fleet street, but as one of the
Two 'baseline' facts here, which you may already know, are that the person
accused of raping George Smith was Michael F*wcett, and that Michael
F*wcett is a boyfriend of 'Prince' Charles. 'Prince' Charles protected his
boyfriend and even laughed in the face of the victim - see the story about
how he gave George Smith a silver picture-frame, then asked him whose
picture he was going to put in it. Mr Smith replied that maybe he would
put a picture of his wife in it. 'Prince' Charles replied that he could
put a picture of '"fucking" Michael Fawcett' (sic) in it if he wanted.
There was, however, an allegation of *another* rape attack, carried out
against a second male employee who was not Mr Smith. This was mentioned in
the media in the coverage surrounding Paul Burrell's trial late last year.
See for example:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2438709.stm>
I repeat - this was not an allegation of a witnessed consensual 'incident'
- this was an allegation of a rape attack against a second male victim.
'Royal' public relations operators are spinning like hell about this. As
is well known, this implies 'giving away' certain stories so as to keep
other ones under wraps. In this connection, one UK newspaper to pay
special attention to, that is especially close to 'Prince' Charles - it's
owned by the 'mysterious' Barclay brothers who are associated with
'Prince' Charles's 'charity work' - is the 'Scotsman'.
Notice for example that during the recent Burrell coverage, I think I am
right in saying that the name Michael F*wcett hasn't been mentioned a
single time.
For a post of mine from November 2002, see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=n70T4MBuIk29Ew6k%40borve.demon.co.uk
--
banana "You know what I hate the most about you Rowntree? The way
you give Coca-Cola to your scum, your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, then expect us to lick your cold frigid fingers for the
rest of your cold frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
banana
HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <7fsnb.1676$lm1....@wards.force9.net>, stephen graham
><cucko...@cuckooland.plus.com> writes
<snip>
>In this connection, one UK newspaper to pay
>special attention to, that is especially close to 'Prince' Charles - it's
>owned by the 'mysterious' Barclay brothers who are associated with
>'Prince' Charles's 'charity work' - is the 'Scotsman'.
BTW the Barclay brothers 'own' the London Ritz hotel where 'Prince'
Charles holds his 'parties'. The hotel has a branding arrangement with
'Prince' Charles - and any monarchist who want to deny this can just
fuck off - you can see how they play on the connection by glancing at
the front page of their website at: <http://www.theritzlondon.com>.
Meanwhile the Sultan of Brunei 'owns' the Dorchester Hotel. Some
probably believe that in the early 1980s the Foreign Office said 'there
you go Sultie, you can be independent now, richest person in the world
is it? nice to see you've struck it lucky' or that the Windsors weren't
taking a cut from Harrods despite the huge use of their logo. Or that
Meyer Lansky didn't have any connection with the Flamingo in Las Vegas.
zeronic
>
> Meanwhile the Sultan of Brunei 'owns' the Dorchester Hotel. Some
> probably believe that in the early 1980s the Foreign Office said 'there
> you go Sultie, you can be independent now, richest person in the world
> is it? nice to see you've struck it lucky' or that the Windsors weren't
> taking a cut from Harrods despite the huge use of their logo.
What's the Sultan/Dorchester/Fayed connection?
--
best wishes etc,
Zeronic AT uk2 DOT net