Mo Fayed – Granted Inquest and Jury


we are all losers .. In granting Fayed both an inquest and a jury, we have made British justice look like a rich man’s toy.

Fayed has deployed all his energy and cash to prove that there was a conspiracy …he is tormented with the unmentionable thought that he is himself partly at fault.

I’ll come clean: I know exactly how Diana died

What joy, what rapture unforeseen! In a decision of almost complete insanity the Court of Appeal has decided that the inquest into the deaths of Diana and Dodi must be held with a jury, and the celebrations are under way. In this page explains the Baton Rouge Truck Accident Lawyers. Babcock Trial Lawyers can help if you are dealing with the aftermath of a destructive commercial truck accident. Typically, a collision between a passenger car and a truck – an 18-wheeler, tractor-trailer, semi, etc. – typically causes devastating accident injuries or death to people in the passenger vehicle.

In recent years, many law firms and lawyers have become specialist lawyers in car accident and offer legal assistance to those involved in a car accident that was not their fault. There is a great potential for claiming insurance for an accident that is not your fault but led to serious injury to your person or property.  Salt Lake City car accident lawyer can help you easily obtain compensation for all expenses incurred because of an accident, including medical expenses, loss of income, and damage caused by the accident. Car accident insurance claims can be a major hassle. We are initially left with the car that often needs an expensive tow, and then left to worry about the many details which must pull together. If you’re looking for a great and inexpensive towing company, feel free to check out You can navigate to this website for the Atlanta Truck Accident Attorneys Providing Legal Services Victims Injured In Semi-Truck Crashes. Dealing with the aftermath of a truck accident can be pretty intimidating. Most truck drivers feel it is okay to drive in a manner that intimidates drivers of much smaller vehicles. They tend to drive more aggressively. In many cases, they are overworked and tired. They are often in a rush to get to where they need to be. This can lead them to disregard certain traffic laws and signals. This reckless behavior can be very hazardous and even fatal. You shouldn’t have to pay for their haste and negligence. If you are a victim in this type of situation, you should not be afraid to fight for what you deserve. Hire a truck accident attorney to take on your case and give you the representation you need. A good truck accident attorney can things done that many other lawyers can’t. They are more skilled and experienced at dealing with big corporations and their legal representatives. They are equipped to gather all of the details and facts that pertain to your accident. They can gather and provide irrefutable proof that substantiates your claim. They can the driver and the company the driver works for to admit and accept responsibility for their role in the situation. By getting them to accept responsibility, your truck accident attorney can get you a compensation reward that fairly compensates you for the injustice you have encountered. Even though you are currently trying to get over and past this situation, it is Important that you take some time to choose a good truck accident attorney. Don’t just pick any name that looks good. Try to be a bit selective and choose a professional that has a lot of experience with cases that are similar to yours. Don’t let the responsible party get away with their recklessness. To do so will leave others at risk and can cause you to be a victim again in the future. Hire a lawyer so you can get the justice you deserve. Don’t listen to the responsible party’s false promises. Make them pay for their negligence and protect others from having to endure the same experience you are. It is not fair that you should be stuck dealing with the aftermath of a situation that you did not cause. Let your lawyer get you back on track after your fender bender. However, armed with a few tips and tricks, it’s possible to win the claim and shorten the time it takes to get it over with. DO Immediately inform local law enforcement at the scene of the accident. Failing to do so is not only illegal, but if the other party decides to file a claim, you’ll have less of a case. Here you will get details of the car accident insurance claim procedure at Vin’s.

Contact your insurance agent as soon as possible. The sooner you get the ball rolling, the sooner the process can be concluded. In addition, swift and accurate reporting benefits you. Contact your agent to let them know what happened, even if you don’t make a claim. If someone else makes a claim on your policy, the insurance company will be less surprised, and may be more lenient in the future. Use specific, factual information when speaking to law enforcement and your insurance agent. Here is a great post to read more about insurance claim lawyer.

Fully understand your insurance policy. Take a good look at it before talking to your insurer. Maintain a careful record of conversations you have pertaining to the accident. This includes what the other party says, the police officer, and anyone at your insurance company. Photograph any damage or injury that occurred as a result of the accident. This will serve as evidence to support your claim.

Do your estimate research. Your company is likely to offer a settlement based on their own contractors. However, the actual repair expense may be much more, in which case, you should negotiate the settlement. Follow any guidelines set forth by your policy. This includes time limits on claims and required actions to take. Failing to adhere could result in the loss of the claim. Ensure that your insurer is holding up their end of the deal. You have both signed a legally binding agreement, and if you feel they are in breach of contract, consult a lawyer.

If you are involved in a car accident, there are 2 important things you must do so as soon as possible –

a. To seek medical advice and services of a qualified and

b. Experienced with car accident lawyer.

For each country having different time in which you can file a claim for accidents, we must act quickly. Only a lawyer experienced accident know how much compensation you are eligible to obtain. It will know the figure after considering all expenses incurred by you because of the accident, including bullying suffered, as well as its own expense.

In increasing number of car accidents and lawsuits has been filed, many lawyers accident bureau now can give free initial consultation to determine whether an accident victim is eligible to make a claim. Once it is assured that there are sufficient grounds for a complaint, the lawyers working on contingency fees, which means you only pay if you receive an allowance. This is normally one third of what you should get.

The good news, when you finally decide to hire a specialist car accident lawyers is that you can find easily and conveniently. You can either ask for recommendations from friends, colleagues or other lawyers that you have worked in the past.

Remember that, the lawyers usually recommend to other lawyers they trust. Also, when you connect to the Internet, you can easily find online a lot of guidance services which may suggest an authorized representative. The latter is actually the most convenient way to find a lawyer car accident in your region.

For legions of  Brach Eichler Trial Lawyers , it’s going to be a binge of expense accounts and refreshers. For the interpreters, the taxi drivers, the hoteliers who will help to look after the dozens of witnesses who will be flown over from Paris, it’s going to be more lucrative than anything since Londonderry held the Savile inquiry. For the journalists, there will be yards of simply eye-popping copy.

There will be sex, death, Nazis, the secret service, the clash of civilisations between Islam and the West – and there will be royals, royals, royals!

And there, in the middle of it all, will be Mo Fayed, the brooding Pharaoh of Alexandria. With his Tourette’s-style profanities and his rib-tickling denunciations of Nazi Prince Philip, he’s going to be the biggest thing to sell newspapers since – well, since Diana.

Trebles all round, boys! Is there a loser? Well yes, my friends, we are all losers – and not just as taxpayers. In granting Fayed both an inquest and a jury, we have made British justice look like a rich man’s toy.

However sympathetic we may be to Mr Fayed for the loss of his son, we must surely accept that no ordinary citizen could expect to secure an inquest into a 10-year-old open-and-shut case of drink driving.

As the appeal court judges made pathetically clear, they are bowing to pressure from Fayed and giving credence to his absurd fantasies. It is very rare for a jury to be empanelled for an inquest. It happens in only three per cent of cases. It happens when there is evidence – evidence – that the death occurred in police custody, or at the hands of some other emanation of the state. Is there any such evidence in this case?

Gah. Almost 10 years ago, Diana, Princess of Wales and her then boyfriend died in a tragic car accident. Their chauffeur, Henri Paul, had more than twice the British limit of alcohol in his bloodstream. He was going much too fast. Neither Dodi nor Diana was wearing a seatbelt. C’est tout, as the French authorities rapidly concluded.

Since then, Mohamed Fayed has deployed all his energy and cash to prove that there was a conspiracy, and in some ways he is like so many other sad victims of bereavement. Not only is he unable to come to terms with his loss; he is tormented with the unmentionable thought that he is himself partly at fault. It was his organisation, his Ritz chauffeur, that proved so disastrously inadequate.

Fayed is very human and unexceptional in his refusal to face this, his utter determination to cast the blame elsewhere. What makes him different is his wealth, his ability to promote these mad obsessions through the judicial system.

It is scarcely credible that an inquest was opened in 2003, given that the facts were so clearly established. But we live in an increasingly mushy-minded age, in which the “rights” of victims’ families are held to be ever more sacred. It is in furtherance of those rights that inquests are increasingly concerned with apportioning blame – even when no good whatever can come from the exercise – and one way or another it is usually possible to claim that blame lies with the state.

It was by repeating this central claim, demented though it patently is, that Fayed was able to justify his call for an inquest; and it was by harping on the same point that he has now secured a jury – with all the ghastly showboating that involves. His Birmingham accident attorneys has already demanded that the proceedings be held in Westminster Central Hall, so as to accommodate the thousands of Diana-worshippers who will want to attend.

The coroner, Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, deserves a medal for at first telling Fayed there was no need for a jury, since she could see no evidence whatever of any state involvement in the death of his son. In this world of bogus sentimentality, she is a model of real compassion and common sense; and it makes one weep to read the ruling of the three judges who overturned her. They say it is important that the wishes of the Fayed family (i.e. Mo) should be taken into account. Why? Would the wishes of any of us be taken into account if we spun a cock-and-bull story about the death of a relative, and alleged that MI6 and Nazi Prince Philip were involved?

Lord Stevens has just spent £3.6 million and 800 pages proving that Fayed’s claims are baloney. So why did the appeal court yield? Because in a spineless way they seem to believe that public opinion demands it, and that without a jury, Lady Justice Butler-Sloss would be accused of some kind of establishment cover-up.

What feeble reasoning. Yes, there are millions of mutton-headed readers of tabloid tripe, and, yes, they have been conditioned to believe Fayed’s claims, just as millions of them believe in Unidentified Flying Objects or the Bermuda Triangle or that taramasalata is a cure for cellulite. But do you think for a moment that they will be shifted in their prejudices if Fayed’s theories are rejected one more time?

It is in the face of this insanity that I have decided at long last to reveal my own evidence, in the hope that Mo will call me as a witness.

I will reveal how the Duke of Edinburgh secretly trained the Loch Ness Monster to swim up the Seine until it reached the Pont d’Alma and then I will explain how Philip then gave a kind of ghillie’s whistle and Nessie reared out of the water and so startled Henri Paul that he swerved into the path of Elvis Presley in the white Fiat Uno, at which point Prince Charles – hovering overhead in a Luftwaffe helicopter – switched on the supermagnet installed by MI6 in the concrete pillar of the tunnel and sucked the Merc to its doom. That is the story I will tell. I got it from the horse’s mouth – Shergar, that is.

It is at least as plausible as the rubbish we will now hear from Fayed, and it is a sad comment on our national sentimentality, and the way a tycoon can buy his day in court, that we are hearing this stuff at all.

77 thoughts on “Mo Fayed – Granted Inquest and Jury”

  1. <‘But we live in an increasingly mushy-minded age, in which the “rights” of victims’ families are held to be ever more sacred’ (Boris)<

    What about the “rights” of Prince’s William and Harry not to be bombarbed with yet more journalists, because of the rantings of a senile old foreigner, who insists on shouting in their Grandmother’s courts that their Grandfather is a German Nazi, embedded with the British Security Services, who had their Mother slaughtered.

  2. Boris, I’m a great fan of yours but you make a fundamental misunderstanding when you write:

    “The coroner, Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, deserves a medal for at first telling Fayed there was no need for a jury, since she could see no evidence whatever of any state involvement in the death of his son. In this world of bogus sentimentality, she is a model of real compassion and common sense; and it makes one weep to read the ruling of the three judges who overturned her. They say it is important that the wishes of the Fayed family (i.e. Mo) should be taken into account. Why? …”

    In fact the reason for the ruling was s 8(3)(d) of the Coroner’s Act 1988, which provides for juries to be appointed where there is reason to suspect “that the death occurred in circumstances the continuance or possible recurrence of which is prejudicial to the health or safety of the public or any section of the public.”

    The presiding judge hearing the case, Lady Justice Smith, said of this provision: “We are uncertain of the reasons or justification for this provision but our task is to apply it” – judge-speak for “this provision is rubbish but we’re stuck with it”.

    It is indeed a rubbish provision. It is common for inquiries such as Coroners’ inquests to make recommendations for law and other changes in future so as to avoid a repeat of the circumstances of a particular case. That is akin to the work of a Parliamentary select committee, or the legislative drafting office. Neither of those would be a job for twelve random members of the public.

    Juries are appropriate (even then, only arguably) for ascertaining the guilt of someone in a criminal trial, which involves judging the appearance, demeanor etc of witnesses and assessing the evidence, with help from the bench and expert testimony. Therefore, s 8(3)(d) should be the opposite of what it is now.

    Back to your article. As I’ve tried to show, the Court of Appeal knew fine well a jury shouldn’t be appointed, but they felt it had to be under s 8(3)(d) (which was hardly argued before Butler Sloss). I personally think they could have slipped around it, by saying that the case raised no significant issues beyond the stupidity of not wearing a seatbelt, but their Lord and Ladyships had it another way …

  3. “that the death occurred in circumstances the continuance or possible recurrence of which is prejudicial to the health or safety of the public or any section of the public.”

    What? Can anyone in their wildest dreams see how the circumstances of Diana’s death, short of the cause being Boris’s highly trained Loch Ness Monster, continue to be prejudicial to public health and safety – least of all in Britain?

    Boris is so very right about the mushy-minded attitude to victims’ rights and real or imagined public opinion. For a deeper analysis, see the Smoking thread on his forum (had to get that in somewhere).

  4. Perfect again Boris. This whole Diana thing has been dragged out for so long it’s beyond a joke. Admittedly it has kept the Daily Dianna in stories for most of that time, but really the whole event needed to be put to bed a long time ago.

    As an aside do the three appeal judges really think that a jury trial will make a jolt of difference to the conspiracy theorists? Well known to ignore even the most blatent facts the result of a jury is hardly going to persuade a single one of them that this was just a case of drunken driving and not some devious conspiracy of royalty and the secret services.

    Some people can simply not accept that things happen by misfortune, never have been able too, and I doubt they ever will.

  5. PaulD

    The argument was that other celebrities might be pursued by other paparazzi, endangering them and bystanders and other road users. Future recommendations might therefore pertain to road safety and also to the rights of paparazzi to sell / publish photographs. Both of those, I’m sure you’ll agree, are exactly not what we want a jury’s verdict on. Both go far beyond what a Coronial inquiry ought to establish. It is plain ridiculous.

    One other aspect of Smith LJ’s judgment infuriated me:

    ” … it is clear that it is at least arguable that the fatal accident was caused or contributed to by the pursuing paparazzi …”

    It is indeed arguable that the paparazzi contributed to the fatal accident. It is not remotely arguable, however, that they could be said to have CAUSED the fatal accident.

    The known facts indicate that the crash was CAUSED by the driver going too fast, and otherwise being reckless. He might have been under the influence of drugs or drink (I know not), which would have exacerbated the risk caused by his excessive speed.

    Suppose that that speed was because he was trying to escape the paparazzi. Could we then say that the paparazzi “caused” the accident. Of course not. There might be many reasons why one would drive fast, perhaps dangerously fast. The car might have been pursued by someone with a gun, or by a maniac who was determined to run the car off the road a la the truck driver in Duel. In those circumstances, driving excessively fast would be understandable. But not, in any remotely rational sense, would it be understandable _just because someone wanted to take a photograph_, even an intrusive photograph which might later be splashed across the gutter press.

    Consider also Diana and Dodi’s circumstances: their relationship was known, they weren’t being filmed doing anything other than sitting in a car. Even if they were engaging in some activity that they wouldn’t want filmed, they should have desisted from the activity rather than ordered the driver to proceed in an unsafe manner.

  6. I think the truth of the matter is that unless the jury reaches a verdict of murder then Al Fayed will never rest. This will be dragged on for years and years and I do not think he will ever be happy with the verdict.

    However, if the driver had survived then surely there would have been a trial by jury anyway to ascertain his guilt. So it could be argued that it is not entirely fair that a jury do not get to decided whether he was drunk and driving just because he is dead, although saying that a person cannot be convicted if they are not present for the trial (I think).

  7. I have to diagree with one thing though. The unidentified flying object comment. An unidentified flying object is just that: an object that is flying which you cannot positivly identify. There is nothing weird about believing that people see objects in the sky which they cannot positively identify. believing that all UFO’s are alien spaceships is however right up their with the loch ness monster

  8. Actually K they don’t have juries in France, but rather a judge-only inquisitorial system … so therefore it would be appropriate NOT to have a jury on that reasoning!

  9. So far as I can judge, Boris is absolutely right.

    However, depending on what kind of people happen to be
    on the jury a verdict of “Murder by Prince Philip” must be quite possible. Many Middle England Daily Mail readers are wiling to believe improbable conspiracy theories about the Princess’s death. Other people are automatically anti-the rest of the Royal family through jealousy and class hostility. That is a prejudice from which Princess Diana enjoyed almost total, although irrational, exemption in the popular mind, whether just because she looked glossier than Mrs Parker Bowles or because her accent was just about unposh enough that the public could imagine her one of their own.

    The Princess of Wales sad death came just before she reached the age that her fashion model looks would really have started to fade without serious surgery.

    If the martyrdom and consequent tabloid sainthood of Diana had not occurred just when it did, would she now be out of fashion, sneered at as a decaying old bag by the popular press?

  10. They do not have juries at all in France? I did not know that I thought all westernised countries had trial by jury.

    I hope that Fayed will let this go though after the jury inquest, but I cannot see it happening.

  11. No, certainly not. The jury system is an English invention. It was bequeathed to _Commonwealth_ countries, most of whom still have it.

    Most countries in Continental Europe, on the other hand, derive their legal systems from Roman law and the Napoleonic Code, which are quite different.

  12. Umpire – thanks for expanding on the judges’ pronouncement. As you say, it does seem quite daft. Even if the jury does agree they were chased by paps who may have contributed to the accident, so what?

  13. Exactly so. I have a real dread that the jury will come up with some nonsense like it was the ‘paps fault’.

    The sad thing is that some good could have come of the whole thing had the press et al focused on the point that in all probability D&D would have had only minor injuries had they worn their seat belts. The person in the front seat – a far more dangerous place in a head on collision – survived by doing so. (Incidentally, I remember seeing a montage of footage of Diana getting in and out of cars, and she never did – I’m told by a female friend that this was because the seatbelt would crease her outfit). The high profile of Princess D would possibly have lent much support to this elementary message of road safety.

    Instead, however, we have been subjected to the most idiotic conspiracy theories, and not all from Mr Al-F by any means.

  14. That is a very good point. I have been told that she would probably walked away with relativly minor injuries had she worn a seatbelt. I have often wondered why the memorial to her did not fund car safety programmes.

  15. I don’t follow, the driver died so how is MI6 meant to have assassinated her? Was he a suicide driver? Wouldn’t it have been easier to blow her up or something, perhaps out of sight of the world’s press rather than while surrounded by them?

    Good stuff Boris – I think you might be on to something, by far the most convincing story about the crash I’ve heard. Except for the official one.

  16. Brilliant however you miss one important point. The real joy of media driven drivel is watching the self obsessed drive themselves into a self defeating corner.

    Mr Fayed can have his jury, a public audience and a thorough testing of his conspiracies. The result I think will unfortunately be unpleasant for the deads non obsessed relatives, however I will enjoy the balance of the proceedings and the culmination of Mr Fayeds refusal to accept that chains of events sometimes add up to tragedy, without any government agency.

  17. I’ve just seen David Cameron saying “racism is disgusting” on the ITV News. Can’t help wondering what he and Boris would have said if a black person had wanted to join the Bullingdon Club.

  18. Can’t help wondering what he and Boris would have said if a black person had wanted to join the Bullingdon Club.

    Much the same as if you’d wanted to join it, Caroline.

  19. Are we back to the Bullingdon club again? What’s this? New-Labour moles trying to sabotage the best political blog around?

    Up here we all formed little gangs and clubs in our youth, with initiations, membership cirteria and the like. They were all discriminatory in one way or another. We would have bullied a blonde-mopped turkish toff like Boris like hell, I’m sure a load of old-etonian rugby boys would have done the same to me.

    Get over it. People grow up.

  20. Sorry to strike a bum note amongst all your sycophants Boris, but, like the rest of us, you can only guess at what happened. You know, as we all do, that we will never know the truth – I don’t blame Al-Fayed for not letting go. Nor would I if it was my child.

  21. I have added Fayed to my list of people (headed by Piers Moron) who should be given a kick in the trousers, front or backside, on sight.
    This sheister carpet dealer should get back in the queue for justice; well behind the parents whose children died in truly tragic and mysterious circumstances, such as those of the ‘suicide’ soldiers of Deepcut Barracks. Where is their inquiry?

  22. Dear Boris,

    Just an irreverent point:

    The quote (from H.M.S. Pinafore) is “Oh joy, oh rapture unforeseen!”

    Not that I’m being a pedant or anything 🙂

    Kindest regards

  23. Sir,
    Those with personal experience of the dark side of Mr Al Fayed`s methods of operating will vouch for his single-mindedness in obtaining his goals. He will employ every technique known to crime writers and film makers of bugging telephones, surveillance and covert harassment in an effort to force his will on witnesses. By granting him the raw material of a jury to work on, those poor individuals would be exposed to the full force of the Fayed machine. My sympathies rest with the jury.

  24. I am suprised that Boris forgets the role of Lord Lucan, for it where he that bought Henri Paul the drink.

    I do think that the continued use of the death of Princess Diana 10 years on to sell newspapers is as immoral as those who continued to photograph her in her last moments.

    Her family and her memory deserve better than this.

  25. Oh for God’s sake, this Bullingdon stuff has to stop. Please take a look at the photo:

    then shut up. Yes, you can smell the privilege. Yes, it’s shameful they shut themselves away with their old Eton chums. Yes, this is public schoolboys’ idea of being a bit rebellious at university, particularly Boris, who seems to be trying to look tough to belie his upbringing. Now surely there’s nothing more to say about it. Basta.

  26. helen – I didn’t think Boris was trying to look anything, except perhaps slightly bored. Unlike some of the others staring into the middle distance, chin up like they’re in a 1950’s cardigan advert.

  27. Well said. She died in a drink drive related accident – end of story……or not in this case.

  28. I am hoping not all rich people have such influence on British Judiciary system and this to be limited to only few.

    I am eager to know whether politicians from foreign countries are able to influence the decisions made at the Home Office on asylum seekers – I find this quite unfair for those desperate creatures living in the condition of statelessness – they loose their human status, deprived from any rights, loosing all hopes for future they turn into ghosts!!!!

  29. Quite so, Boris. Well said. Trouble is, unless all possibilities are put to rest in the lifetime of those who remember, people will speculate for eternity. A bit like those who question Christ because the gospels were written quite a bit later. A few million quid today may well save centuries of argument.

    Speed had as little to do with it as the other almost irrelevant fact that a MB S-class made the cutting-out take so much longer. Mis-judgement and panic was probably the cause. An alcoholic will be as sober as you or me even when two or three times over the ‘blood limit’.

    From memory, the car was the slowest of its breed (never good) and it was an evil-handling, accident-repaired machine. Speed doesn’t kill, as our wonderful police always insist. Inexperience, lack of a seat-belt and dodgy German cars do. Benzes and BMWs are not very safe on anything other than the autobahn at ‘speed’. The person who survived was wearing a seatbelt, wasn’t he?

  30. Thanks for the link Helen. I am torn between my lifelong pacifist ideals and the urge to begin a “Which one would you kick first?” competition. They are all looking extremely jealous of Mr Benson, who finished up married to Lulu – I wish I’d gone to Eton.

  31. Something is very wrong here Boris in case you didn’t notice that is.
    OK so we are told Henry Paul was drunk and had taken prescription drugs fair enough it happens….
    but come on … carbon monoxide on top of what he already supposedly had in his blood , why didn’t he crash his car before arriving at the Ritz,
    drunk driving i can believe . taking prescription drugs and drinking i can believe . but we are told Henry Paul was drunk and had taken prescription drugs which can make you drowsy anyway , then somehow as no one can explain happened to get enough carbon monoxide in his blood to wipe out a whole family and all this before he even arrived at the Ritz. is it any wonder Mr Al fayed wants answered , is it any wonder he is so suspicouse . the man lost his only son and is all the french have come up with is these silly unbelievable story’s of Henry Paul being drunk.
    perhaps you yourself are super man and think this can be believed .. sorry read a medical dictionary , it just doesn’t happen…

  32. Over 90% of the British people who know that Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed were assassinated and Henri Paul was NOT drunk NOR high from any drugs – prescription or illegal drugs and he most certainly did NOT have NOR could he have had carbon monoxide in his (actual) blood. The camera does NOT lie. The videos clearly show Henri Paul was steady on his feet, walking, running up the stairs, and bending down to tie his shoes, and then standing up again. Henri Paul’s parents have stated their son did NOT drink NOR take any drugs. His closest friends have confirmed this as well, therefore who are you to dispute the knowledge of his own parents and closest friends? Henri Paul’s parents are along side Mr Fayed in this case. They are pursuing setting the record straight about their son and clearing his name.

    These people lost their much loved children. They are still grieving and always will be. They are right to continue their quest for THE TRUTH. Would you have done anything less for your own children? Wouldn’t you still be grieving for your beloved children? This is something one never gets over.

    The only farce here is ‘journalists’ like yourself who continue to spout the same old tired mantra which makes up Lord Stevens’ WHITEWASH which left so many unanswered questions as well as completely ignoring eighteen (18) key witnesses who volunteered to give their evidence.

    Have you seen a recent photo of Princes William and Harry? In case you have NOT done or have NOT noticed, William and Harry are NOT little boys anymore. They are adults, grown men, each well over six feet tall – thanks to their mum, Princess Diana. Stop treating them as though they were still in nappies.

    [Ed: inappropriate comments removed]

  33. Here’s an absurd idea that might appeal to Caroline (see above): any public-schoolboy or girl who has gone straight from eton etc to Oxbridge should have to do a year’s National Service or charity equivalent straight after uni. Otherwise they may go straight into merchant banking or whatever and never properly get to know anyone outside from outside their elitist background.

    Now can that be the last word on Bullingdon please?

  34. <‘The videos clearly show Henri Paul was steady on his feet, walking, running up the stairs, and bending down to tie his shoes, and then standing up again.’ (Mrs Mary B)<

    I can do all that when I’m drunk, driving a big fast car at 120mph through an inner city tunnel might prove a different matter however.

  35. I presume that Pincess Diane’s surviving bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, will be called to give evidence at the inquest.
    That should make interesting listening,and wrap the whole thing up….unless of course memory loss has taken place.

  36. any public-schoolboy or girl who has gone straight from eton etc to Oxbridge should have to do a year’s National Service or charity equivalent straight after uni. (Hamstergirl)

    I would go along with that if every kid leaving school with insufficient qualifications to get a job did the same.

  37. Steven L: We’re to take your word that you’re that talented. I don’t think so.

    Regarding the car, Mercedes, the manufacturer, reported almost ten years ago that the car carrying Princess Diana, Dodi, Henri Paul, and Trevor Rees was NOT travelling at 120 mph as was falsely claimed by the French police. The speedometre returns to “0” when Mercedes vehicles come to a halt and does NOT freeze elsewhere on the speedometre.

    You would rather accept the falsified reports than that of Mr Paul’s parents and friends who knew him best. He was NOT drunk nor a drug user of any kind – prescription or illegal street drugs.

    The perpetuation of the false police reports concerning Henri Paul being drunk is prolonging the distress of his elderly parents.

    Kindly give them some compassion.


    Steven_L said:
    “I can do all that when I’m drunk, driving a big fast car at 120mph through an inner city tunnel might prove a different matter however.”

  38. Wouldn’t you still be grieving for your beloved children? (Mrs Mary B)

    Yes, I would, but that doesn’t mean I’d still be baying for justice ten years later when it’s obviously a lost cause. I would rather treasure the memory of happier times.

    The Phoney Pharoah (Mr Fayed as you call him) has repeatedly been refused British citizenship despite giving millions to charity, when every other oddball seems to manage. One cannot help questioning whether his quest for “justice” is motivated entirely by a broken heart.

    You’re big on facts, Mrs B. I’m curious how you arrive at “Over 90% of the British people know that Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed were assassinated…” and how you can be sure that StevenL is incapable of tying his shoelaces after a skinful.

  39. Why does everyone keep going on about this? Diana Spencer was an ordinary, rather spoiled upper-class girl who rapidly degenerated into (for want of a better word), a [Ed: comment moderated]. No-one gives a damn how she died apart from Fayed. (And I’m pleased Boris didn’t add the false and inapplicable ‘Al-‘ to his name).

  40. Did IQ.S suddenly drop in this country in the last ten years?
    every day someone dies from the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning . a family can fall asleep and never wake up. when you breath carbon monoxide in large amounts , like the amount Henry Paul had in his blood , you start to feel sleepy . your body becomes heavy , you cant stand up .you cant even think straight. you just want to sleep and if you are not found in time you never wake tell me this, how on earth did he get all that carbon monoxide in his blood and still manage to get in his car and drive to the Ritz ? , the french cant explain it, Stevens cant explain it , so who can ?, no one because the blood samples do not belong to Henry Paul.
    Steven L perhaps you can do all you said when your drunk , but my dear try a few gulps of carbon monoxide , can you do it now, i don’t think so.

  41. Mrs Mary B – I understand that you are very emotional about this issue but ad hominem comments to other posters is discouraged on this blog. Also, Boris Johnson is neither resposible nor accountable for the opinions of his readers and welcomes all opinions within the guidelines stated.

  42. Mary B, you’ve not bothered answering the one basic point here:

    If D & D had worn seatbelts they would have survived.

    That much is irrefutable given that the passenger in the front (far more vulnerable in a head-on) survived, and had been wearing one.

    That’s the TRUTH. Still, if you look for conspiracies you’ll find them.

  43. I just don’t see what the point of this inquest is. To be fair I can barely remember Diana, being only ten when she died, but to me it just seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money that could be spent on other things – such as road safety campaigns, or drink-driving campaigns. Surely that would be a better use of resources than using the British legal system in an attempt to drag the Royal Family’s name through the mud.

    People made up their minds on this topic ten years ago – another inquest won’t change anything. They were just a bunch of people who had an unfortunate accident – a boy I went to school with was killed two years ago in a car accident. During the post mortem they found that he and his friends had all either been drinking or taking drugs. The car rounded a bend too fast and hit a tree – accidents happen. Paying too much attention to this just reflects badly on us as citizens and on our legal service for letting someone like Fayed wear them down.

  44. Lady Diana Spencer was NOT an ordinary girl and she most certainly was NOT spoiled. Diana is the TRUE, GENUINE blue-blooded royal as a result of her very direct royal ancestry from several English and Scottish monarchs unlike the UNroyals at Buck and Clarence Houses. Spoiled?! You don’t have to look any further than Charles. He is NOT only spoiled but a cheat and a liar. He never had any intention of honouring his marriage vows considering he and Camilla slept together the night before his and Diana’s wedding. This is common knowledge the world over. Even Charles’ parents’, the Queen and Prince Philip, know and have stated that Charles is a hopeless cause.

    Princess Diana herself stated in her Panorama interview in November 1995 that she was needed for her genes. The “Windsors” (aka, the Hanovers, Saxe-Coburg-Gothe) needed Diana’s LEGITIMATE, GENUINE, TRUE ROYAL blood to restore legitimacy and actual royal blood to the tired, common UNroyal, foreign blood of the “Windsors”.

    Obviously, none of you have done any serious research regarding Charles and Camilla’s 35 year illicit affair, or the car crash which killed Princess Diana, Dodi al Fayed, and Henri Paul. J Gosling is correct with the comments re carbon monoxide. No one would have been able to drive, walk, or stand with carbon monoxide in their system.

    Regarding the seat belts in the rear seat of the Mercedes, you would know the answer to this if any of you had done any serious research into the assassinations of Princess Diana and Dodi. Mr Fayed was NOT granted British citizenship due to the bigotry of the British Establishment.

    You have just proven this bigotry does exist toward Mr Fayed by your various comments (e.g., PaulD: “has repeatedly been refused British citizenship despite giving millions to charity, when every other oddball seems to manage.”).

    Continue to blindly follow along with the British Establishment’s agenda regarding the murders of Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed. This way you don’t need to think for yourselves. Those of us who have done serious research for the past ten years on the events in Paris of Saturday 30 August 1997 to Sunday 31 August 1997 prefer to think for ourselves.

    What about all the reputable and respected investigative journalists, researchers, and authors who have spent years investigating and researching the car crash and deaths of Princess Diana, Dodi al Fayed, and Henri Paul? You lot are just going to dismiss these professional experts? Again, this is easy for you to do as it prevents you thinking for yourselves.

    Princess Diana, Dodi, and particularly professionally trained bodyguards, Trevor Rees and Kes Wingfield, would have smelled the alcohol on Henri Paul if he had been “as drunk as a pig” as has been touted for all these years. If he had been extremely drunk as has been falsely reported, anyone would have been unmistakably able to smell the drink. He would have reeked of the smell! If this had been the case, Trevor Rees would never have permitted his charges, Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed, to get in the car with a drink driver at the wheel. Trevor Rees would certainly NOT have got into a car being navigated by a drunk!

    J Gosling, you are correct about IQs dropping in this country over the past decade. [Ed: Comment moderated]

  45. Is there any significance that Diana was in a GERMAN car????
    No, not really!
    Let’s give all this a rest – a drunken Frenchman crashed a car. End of story. Unless Big Mo can provide us with some real evidence, rather than the odd rant (very odd somethimes) I’d rather spend my time scratching myself.

  46. You have just proven this bigotry does exist toward Mr Fayed by your various comments (e.g., PaulD: “has repeatedly been refused British citizenship despite giving millions to charity, when every other oddball seems to manage.”).

    If bigotry means you can’t buy respectability, I’m all for it, Mrs B.

    And by ignoring the next sentence, One cannot help questioning whether his quest for “justice” is motivated entirely by a broken heart, you have missed my point.

    “Mr Fayed” might gain more sympathy if he didn’t come across as a slimeball – a cunning and vengeful slimeball.

  47. Mary, Mary, quite contrary to say the least …

    The history of the royals and indeed the aristocracy generally is rife with murder, infidelity, intrigue and everything else. To talk of Diana as having pure genes and being the true blue-blooded type, is the stuff of Nazi fantasists, but not many others.

    “Regarding the seat belts in the rear seat of the Mercedes, you would know the answer to this if any of you had done any serious research into the assassinations of Princess Diana and Dodi. Mr Fayed was NOT granted British citizenship due to the bigotry of the British Establishment.”

    Either there were seatbelts in the back or there weren’t. If there were, D&D should have worn them, and can blame only themselves for not doing so. If there weren’t, they should have refused to travel in the car. I always do. So could they. You don’t bother referring to any of this so-called expert evidence so we can’t judge any of it.

    The second quoted sentence has nothing to do with the first, so I’ve no idea why you put it in the same paragraph. Suffice it to say that Fayed wasn’t called a government-certified liar for nothing.

  48. “Serious research”? Easy way to make a fast bit of money. If you want proper investgative journalism you should look at people who delve into arms deals in the Middle East or other political/economic/social scandals. Not people who are on the make and capitalising on morbid sensationalism.

    It is also extreme hypocrisy to deride someone on this message board for treating Fayed as a bit of a joke (and accusing them of having racist undertones) and then to accuse others (the Royal Family) of being “common… foreign”. I could understand being cross that they were born into privilege, but being rude on the basis of nationality is unacceptable.

    I think the best thing that people on this board could do is just rise above Mrs B’s comments. She’s not going to change her mind or become any less offensive – by rising above it we maintain the moral high ground and prove a point about public hysteria.

  49. Thanks, PaulD, I didn’t overlook your comment, I just forgot it. You have reminded me that I wanted to comment on it. Mr Fayed’s quest for justice is not only the result of a “broken heart” but it is the correct and only thing to do. He lost his only son. Mr Henri Paul’s elderly parents lost their son, and they, too, are still seeking justice as well as clearing their son’s name. What do you have to say about Mr and Mrs Paul?

    Why can’t you people understand their grief and sadness? The loss of a child leaves a person hollow and shattered. There is no recovery.

    Again you have proven my point about the British Establishment’s bigotry to Mr Fayed. You are so prejudiced against him.

    [Ed: Comment moderated]

    This accounts for the balding spot on the back of his head. He puts his foot in his mouth so often that a hole is starting to form on the back of his head.

    Respectibility can’t be bought nor can it be demanded as Charley Wind-sore thinks. The unjust term you called Mr Fayed is applicable to Charley Wind-sore for the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts re his marriage vows to Princess Diana in the eyes of God which vows he never intended to keep as he wasn’t even faithful to Diana during their engagement. They had their wedding rehearsal and party afterwards. Diana returned to Clarence House and Charley and Camilla spent the night in his bedroom at Buck House. Not only this but Charley and Camilla’s 35 year illicit and selfish affair in which they destroyed their marriages as well as the lives of four innocent children.

  50. Oh come on Rose, Mary B’s entertaining if nothing else. I just hope she’s not chosen for the jury. I like this quote of her’s, however:

    “[Charles] and Camilla slept together the night before his and Diana’s wedding. This is common knowledge the world over.”

    Good lord, I knew the houses they live in are pretty large, but the “world over” was in the bedroom with them? I wasn’t, for one…

  51. You lot would do well to remember that Princess Diana’s son(s), Prince William (or Prince Harry) is our future king, therefore you should not insult their mother. Prince Harry stated in his 21st birthday interview that he and his brother are taking notes. They are just biding their time.

  52. oooooh scary. I for one insult anyone I feel like, and am less afraid of establishment assassinations than you. Indeed, that doesn’t really square with all of your insults towards Charles et al – if you’re bothered about what the King gets up to, you should stop hassling Charles.

    Foreigners like myself have some difficultly understanding the attachment of the British to all this hereditary claptrap, and you haven’t made it any more understandable …

  53. I find it interesting that someone seems to think it wrong and harmful to children to insult their mother but perfectly acceptable to insult their father. And when we are reminded that the princes William and Harry are “adults, grown men, each well over six feet tall” it is apparently “thanks to their mum”?? Does a fathers DNA not come into the mix?

    A most interesting opinion.

  54. Oh no Jaq! You’ve mentioned the father’s DNA. You’ll have the ‘men-in-black’ hauling you off now.

    Harry’s father’s DNA is officially something that ‘one does not discuss’. I found it amusing to be told by some medical r&d people I knew when I was working in Cambridge a few years back, that samples of Harry’s DNA seem to be a tradeable commodity among PHD medical students. But we mustn’t question his paternity must we?

  55. Mr Fayed’s quest for justice is not only the result of a “broken heart” but it is the correct and only thing to do. (Mrs Mary B).

    Sorry, it’s not the only thing to do. He could, if he had a modicum of humility, make up his mind to live with the tragic consequences of an unfortunate accident, like thousands of other people.

    Now I’m going to be really nasty and suggest that some of his anger is the result of being deprived of a passport to respectability through the pairing of his son with royalty – not that it would ever have won him much approbation.

  56. Chris Morriss – question his paternity? Perish the thought. I’m sure the reason the lad has the colouring and resemblance of a close friend of his mother is pure coincidence.

    Harry’s DNA a tradeable commodity huh? Eew!

  57. My sister died suddenly aged just 50 years . my mother never got over it . we had to sit in the crematorium and watch my mother sob with a broken heart . she never got over my sisters death and right up to when my mother passed over herself she always asked WHY….

    As for the charles and Diana saga, what Charles Windsor did was no less than cruel . he took a young naive girl and seduced her into believing he loved her and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her . Camilla for her part went along with it and befriended Diana knowing full well she was sleeping with the man Diana was to marry . the Queen knew long before in fact in 1979 the Queen was informed that Charles was carrying on with Camilla while Camilla’s husband was away on tour of duty .
    Charles went on to lie before the world and God and take his vows he had no intention of keeping.
    when found out the coward lied yet again and said he only resumed his affair after his marriage had broken down . that affair resumed in 1979 and never ended . he lied to his wife , his Son’s, and his country. from what i have read on Charles he is a coward who never takes the blame for anything he does.

  58. I wanted to leave you my thoughts on [Ed: comment moderated] Princess Diana . It is disgraceful the thngs that you have said about her . Where is your integrity ? Did it go out the window ?
    Diana was loved the world over . Her compassion for others shown through like the noon day sun ! The people that she made their day brighter . The children she visited in the hospital , the aids patients not to mention when she drove hours to be there for someone who was dying . I think you have forgotten that one .
    That is not someone who is selfish in the least . Not when you care that much about others and it was genuinely obvious .
    She is as blue blooded as it comes . There are many famous people whom she is related to too . I can name them for you , William Wallace , Orsen Wells , Mary Queen of Scots , Robert De Bruce , President John Quincy Adams and not to mention a long line of Stewarts / Stuarts .
    Now on the topic of her death , which was no accident . Paul the driver that night was no more drunk than the man and the moon . If you look at the film from that night he was not drunk . He did not swagger , he did not stumble , he was walking normally . Plus , how do you account for the thousands of dollars in seperate checking accounts . Plus mind you , how do you account for the white paint on the back of the car they were in or the flash of light that many people saw that fateful night . Not to mention that all of the survalience that taped her phone comversations , and followed her everywhere she went before she died . How do you account for that ? How do you account for all the letters that she received from the establishment that caused Diana to fear for her life ? That is not just what I think there are many who feel this way .

    There is another thing how can you slam the dead they are not even here to defend themselves . You are showing people your true character . You are making only yourself look bad . To me you have no integrity whatsoever . Many people see it that way . You need to think long and hard about that one .
    Please think about her boys ! How would you feel if someone was trashing your mother ? Think about that one . Think about Diana’s family and how they feel . To me what you are doing is cold hearted to say the least . Diana has extended family in the US too . Have you thought about them or how it affects them ? From what I can tell you do not .
    Those are my thoughts and many others see it the way I do . Please think about that . You would not want someone to go around and trazh a family member of yours .
    Those are my opinions and of everyone I have spoken to .

  59. “any public-schoolboy or girl who has gone straight from eton etc to Oxbridge should have to do a year’s National Service or charity equivalent straight after uni.” (Hamstergirl)

    It’s not a totally ridiculous idea. It would be good if everyone in Britain mixed across the social classes a lot more.

  60. More comments to you . How low must you stoop ! I now know you are heartless ! That has no relavance to the situation with both boys being Diana’s . It is disgraceful what you are doing . I now know you do not care one bit about her boys much less yourself . You do not care one bit about anyone else but yourself . I now know you have no integrity whatsoever . This is shameful what you are doing .
    I for one can tell you red hair runs in this family . If you would take a look at her family you can see that red hair is common . There is a strawberry blonde in there and auburn color too . Take a look at her sisters hair and her brother for that matter .
    I think you need to find out the facts before you go spouting off at the mouth about someone . [Ed: comment moderated] My opinion , and everyone has one about you now . They now know what type of person you are and how low you will stoop to make a name for yourself . My thoughts and others too .

  61. 1.28% of CM couses death within 3 minutes ,it is claimed Henry Paul had 2.27% CM a fatal dosage in his blood stream when he died. no one can explain this. not even Stevens…. it couldn’t have happened the poor man would have been dead within seconds of breathing that amount in .If you all believe the load of rubbish about these blood samples then i am sorry to insult you all but you lack intelligence. or you just don’t want to accept the truth. you Boris as an MP should know better , surly you should know this report on these blood samples are wrong.
    you can check on the effects of carbon monoxide .

  62. What’s with all these strange (to this site) people emerging with their own version of a jury-led inquest?

    Either there are a lot of folk out there with a macabre interest in the minutiae of Diana’s death or we are witnessing the birth of another conspiracy theory, this one pre-trial.

  63. Ok, so whether it was an almost perfectly executed operation to get rid of ‘the problem’ or a tragic accident – there is little to be done. Read the history books of how dynasties have always moved to protect themselves, of how the general public has always developed detailed tales of conspiracy, think back to the nineties, relive the stories of what happened to those who worked for ‘intelligence’ then told their stories – no matter how mild.

    Think back to HM’s reports of ‘dark forces’ in the UK, of Diana’s ability to show up the Windsors even before she began to enjoy the company of undesirables, of the mass media hysteria over everything she did, and just how they would fail to take in that she was after all mortal, and able to be killed in a mundane RTA. Consider how many people would be involved in an organised death of one of the world’s most well-loved personalities.

    Consider how far-fetched the idea of bumping off Diana was, and ask yourself whether you believe the official story of Monroe’s death, having watched all (or none) of the documentaries and films made about her demise.

    Very few, if any, know the full story, and it will probably become one of the great fairy-tales for many generations to come. I don’t know, you don’t know, and some of the comments made above are fascinating – and frightening. The heir apparent was unharmed, and Diana’s genes live on in the heir presumptive.

    Is the Western World so pre-occupied with and frightened of death because its denial of it with the promise of everlasting life (on the Third Day, He rose again etc. etc.?) Diana achieved far more than most could ever dream of, and lives on in more memories than perhaps any other recently-living person.

    Maybe we should be glad we do deny the reality of death – in Madagascar death is celebrated, and ancestors are routinely exhumed and carried aloft through the streets.

    The questions which should be answered are those which pertain to the poor condition of the car in which D died. According to other chauffeurs who used the Fayed fleet in Paris, a perfectly wide-awake, sober, drug-free person could have crashed that car at any speed above a crawl.

  64. It seems to me that some people have a personal dislike of Mr Al fayed , and this is clouding their judgement on this inquest .

    No one is bothered what the truth is about these deaths . some just cannot accept the truth simply because it is Mr Al fayed .
    it seems to me some just don’t want him proved right.
    as for this inquest costing the tax payer … Mr Al fayed has paid more than enough taxes even though he isn’t a British citizen . so he is entitled to a little bit back .
    i would say he has paid more into this country than any one of you on here .

  65. As some of us can trace their lineage back to when records began and have lost family every generation in defence of this country I doubt whether “he has paid more into this country than any one of you on here”

    They were in a speeding car in a tunnel and weren’t wearing a seatbelt. End of!

    If people are so entitled to a little bit back, tell that to all the pensioners whose diligence will go unrewarded because of this Labour government.

  66. Annon i agree with you on the pensioners .and this government . the sooner they go the better for all in this country.

    but i don’t agree on the rest. i can trace my linage back to 1594 did family history for 7 years .

    just accept the truth . most of you are just going along with what Boris thinks. use your own judgment.

  67. J Gosling – an impossible position when my own judgement happens to agree with Boris Johnsons’ on this issue. Methinks I am not alone but it seems that evry poster who shares Boris’ view is being charged of sycophancy. Can it not be that after much thought we simply agree with the man?

  68. Annon Is all i am trying to get through to everyone is how please tell me can you agree with the Blood Results of Henry Paul… how can anyone agree with that?. something is amiss if they refuse to admit that those results are wrong . people make mistakes all the time including medical mix-ups it happens so why not admit this is the case here . i have read up on the effects of CM and i am sorry those results must be wrong otherwise Henry Paul should have been dead long before he got into that car.
    he didn’t get the CM from the crash as the other three had no trace of it in their systems so where did it come from.
    don’t you see ? there is no way it has happened as the french are trying to make out.
    yes speeding and avoiding another car can make you crash , yes drink driving can make you crash, yes not wearing a seat belt can cause serious injury and death , all these things i can believe but to actually put it out to the public that a man drank ever so many vodkas on top of Prozac and then breathed in lethal amounts of CM and actually survived long enough to leave where ever he was ,no one knows ,and get to the Ritz and then drive a car, is to me an insult to the public’s intelligence .

    the french also wont release the CCTV video of that night in the tunnel instead they claim they where switched off . so either way this makes people suspicious .
    too many questions remain unanswered regarding what happened that night .too many coincidences have occurred involving this crash.
    Mr Al fayed just wants to know what really happened that night , if it turned out to be accident then he will have to accept this .
    i would be the same if it was my child .
    but you can only accept it when you are told the honest truth and i don’t think we are being told the truth ,
    i also do not think Charles had anything to do with it i give him the respect in the fact he loves his two boys and wouldn’t hurt them in this way . one thing Diana and Charles always agreed on was their Son’s .
    but i wouldn’t rule out those who branded Diana a loose cannon , those who will stop at nothing to protect the monarchy .

  69. <‘What’s with all these strange (to this site) people emerging with their own version of a jury-led inquest?’ (PaulD) <

    Well PaulD, according to ‘Hugh Bear’:

    <‘He [Fayed] will employ every technique known to crime writers and film makers of bugging telephones, surveillance and covert harassment in an effort to force his will on witnesses’<

    Maybe it’s Fayed’s spin machine getting to work.

  70. Maybe it’s Fayed’s spin machine getting to work.

    How could you make such an outrageous suggestion, Steven? Shame on you for even thinking such things.

Comments are closed.