 |
rigorousintuition.ca
What you don't know can't hurt them.
|
|
View previous topic ::
View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tal
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 66
|
 Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:34 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Keep yer head down Harry. I read yesterday that
"Al Quaeda" are after you !! |
The death of Harry would, IMHO, actually be a boon for
the royals: create sympathy for them while, at the same
time, dispose of the spawn of Diana's infidelity... no
inconvenient DNA tests will ever need to be ordered.
Notice William remains close to home.......
Call me a cynic.... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
slimmouse
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1808
|
|
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:51 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| tal wrote: |
| Quote: |
Keep yer head down Harry. I read
yesterday that "Al Quaeda" are after you
!! |
The death of Harry would, IMHO, actually be a
boon for the royals: create sympathy for them
while, at the same time, dispose of the spawn of
Diana's infidelity... no inconvenient DNA tests
will ever need to be ordered. Notice William
remains close to home.......
Call me a cynic.... |
Which is precisely why he should keep his head down.
Especially given what we know about who "Al Qaeda" are
in bed with.
David Shayler went on the run and then to prison for
exposing the MI6 funding of "Al Quaeda", in their
attempted state sponsored murder of Gaddaffi.
Unfortunately for David, his story (which was about to
explode Big time) was superceded by a bigger story - The
Death of Diana
Funny how things come full cycle huh ?
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
|
Posted:
Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:33 am
Post subject: |
|
|
.
slim,
Did you ask about Richard Tomlinson?
(and tal, this may be related to Al Fayed's legal action
in France)
| Quote: |
Lord Goldsmith
moves to gag spy giving evidence in Diana case
By Gordon Thomas
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has used a
gagging order against former MI6 agent, Richard
Tomlinson, to stop him from giving evidence by
video link to the Diana inquest.
It is the second time in the past ten days Lord
Goldsmith has become involved in a gagging order
controversy.
Like his attempt to silence the BBC over its
report on the cash-for-honours scandal, the
order against Tomlinson is also surrounded by
secrecy.
A surprised senior lawyer at the French bar,
maitre Clotele Normand, who is acting for the
government to enforce the gagging order because
Tomlinson now lives near Nice, said:
"I am astonished
you have learned of this. I am not authorised to
answer your questions on the matter. I cannot
discuss how English law can be enforced in
France against Mr Tomlinson. My instructions are
that nothing can be publicly said on this
matter", said the lawyer in Paris.
Tomlinson's own lawyer, Yves Rousarie, says the
gagging order raised "disturbing questions".
Before Clotele Normand was instructed by
Treasury solicitors in London,
Special Scotland
Yard Branch officers had raided Tomlinson's
apartment in France.
"They took away my computers and all my legal
documents, which would have enabled me to fight
the gagging order", said Tomlinson.
The order against the spy was originally granted
by Mr Justice Parkes in the High Court in London
in 2001. The order was granted on the grounds
that the former spy had contravened the Official
Secrets Act by revealing details about his work.
By then the former spy had fled to France where
he has remained. The order was not legally
pursued at the time in France.
Last week Tomlinson said he was prepared to give
evidence to the Diana inquest by video link.
"I would have
focussed on the time when I was at MI6 and I saw
a secret document describing in detail how to
make an assassination appear like a car
accident. The document had a 'yellow mark'
category which means it could only be seen at
the highest level. The document specifically
referred to an MI6 plan to assassinate Slobodan
Milosevic, the former Serbian president, by
blinding his driver with a bright flash in a
tunnel. The plan was exactly the same one used
to create the fatal crash of Diana and Dodi",
Tomlinson said in his exclusive interview.
Tomlinson believes his evidence could be a
"smoking gun" at the Diana inquest.
He has made his claim before about the MI6
document -- and it has been
totally
dismissed by the Stevens Report on the
deaths of Diana and Dodi.
But now his lawyer believes there must be "real
substance in my claims otherwise Lord Goldsmith
would not be implementing the gagging order
against me.
"Lord Goldsmith has made it clear he wants the
gagging order to be in place in France as soon
as possible.
"It is virtually impossible for my lawyer to
fight the gagging order because all my legal
documents were removed by the Special Branch
officers. Repeated attempts to retrieve them by
my lawyer have been ignored by Scotland Yard.
"My only hope now is to speak out and hope
public opinion will be aroused, just as it has
been over the gagging of the BBC.
"Unlike the BBC, I am not in a financial
position to fight the Attorney General and the
government. I have used up pretty well all my
savings", said Tomlinson.
His lawyer is now exploring "how to get the
gagging order raised at the European Human
Rights court in Strasbourg.
"But that could take many months and
by then the
Diana inquest would be long over. The one
question I want answered is: what is MI6 afraid
of in having their role forensically examined in
the full public spotlight?" Tomlinson concluded. |
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/thomas031107.htm
Goodness me!
The Attorney General uses the Official Secrets Act to
shut the witness up!
How can that be? Remember what Butler-Sloss said at the
hearing?
| Quote: |
Lady Butler-Sloss said:
"French witnesses cannot be forced to give
evidence, I
cannot compel them.
.....
This is a serious matter, but these are French
citizens with their own rights.
"I don't have power to require anyone to attend
from France." |
Remember that oath the world's greatest attorney
general, (like the world's greatest coroner), swore, the
one that finishes:
"And generally in all
things I will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to
do to Her Majesty. So help me God."
And Goldsmith's OSA gag means that the
other privy
counsellor, the world's greatest coroner, is in a
position to state publicly:
| Quote: |
| She told Michael Mansfield,
QC, representing Mr Al Fayed: "At the moment
there is not a shred of evidence given to me
about any of these allegations." |
If I didn't KNOW that Her Majesty is the most wonderful,
most caring, most wise and most godlike of all the
world's statesmen I might guess that she had something
to do with it all.
Fortunately her sheer goodness precludes any such
possibility. God would never grant such powers and
adulation to any person who is less than perfect -
Dieu
et mon Droit
So what about the privy council? Those good and faithful
servants of Her Majesty?
There are comments on another thread about how the privy
council is to be "abolished".
It's not true.
The Privy Council office
is to be abolished.
The privy council itself will be hidden within two
government departments (the Cabinet Office and the
Department for Constitutional Affairs).
So it's still there, meeting at Buckingham Palace every
month.
But they've made it invisible.
Why? Like always, the answer to that is in the timing:
| Quote: |
The Privy Council Office,
which dates back to the 12th century, is being
downgraded as part of "efficiency
savings".
A memo from Sir Gus O'Donnell, the head of the
Civil Service, to the Prime Minister discusses
ways to keep the
changes "low key" and suggests announcing
the news on the same day that the planned
shake-up of the Home Office is unveiled. The
strategy last night drew claims that Labour was
planning to
"bury bad news".
.......
Sir Gus's three-page memo,
dated February 2,
proposes that, despite the downgrading, Baroness
Amos, the current head of the department, should
retain her title as Lord President of the Privy
Council so that she can continue to draw a
Cabinet salary. |
http://tinyurl.com/2dfxsu
(Daily Telegraph)
From earlier in this thread, quoting Al Fayed:
| Quote: |
| "How can a Coroner for the
Royal Household, appointed by the Queen and
apparently in her employ, instil any confidence
in me and the public generally that she will
fearlessly and independently investigate all the
facts, and reach decisions which are impartial?"
|
The date?
| Quote: |
Al Fayed for fight Diana
ruling
Press Association
Friday January
26, 2007 6:43 PM |
Do you all get the picture yet????? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
antiaristo
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
|
Posted:
Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:00 am
Post subject: Tomlinson |
|
|
.
Richard Tomlinson's name comes up 179 times in the
Stevens/Paget report.
By way of comparison, the name Paul Burrell comes up 123
times.
Richard Tomlinson is clearly an important witness.
So privy counsellor Lord Goldsmith subsequently gags
Richard Tomlinson in France, ensuring he cannot give
evidence.
Privy counsellor Lady Butler-Sloss then declares "At the
moment there is not a shred of evidence given to me
about any of these allegations."
It was privy counsellor Lord Goldsmith aborted the
BAe/Saudi corruption investigation (though they'll blame
it on the Director of Public Prosecutions).
Consequently the OECD worries that there are systemic
failings in the UK legal system
| Quote: |
| In light of these outstanding
issues, the Working Group has decided to conduct
a supplementary review of the United Kingdom
(“Phase two bis”) focused on progress in
enacting a new foreign bribery law and in
broadening the liability of legal persons for
foreign bribery.
The Phase two
bis review will also examine whether systemic
problems explain the lack of foreign bribery
cases brought to prosecution as well as
other matters raised in the context of the
discontinuance of the BAE Al Yamamah
investigation. The Phase two bis review will
include an on-site visit to be conducted within
one year. |
http://www.oecd.org/document/12/0,2340,en_2649_201185_38251148_1_1_1_1,00.html
Guys, there ARE systemic problems. Too bloody right.
The Queen and her privy counsellors.
(You know. What Blair and O'Donnell are seeking to
conceal within the architecture of government by
abolishing the support office.)
Their oath finishes:
"And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and
true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me
God."
THAT'S THE SYSTEMIC
PROBLEM
So what's the Queen trying to exclude from the inquest,
through the agency of her faithful and true servant the
attorney general?
Here is the Tomlinson Affidavit.
As they like to say to us, if you've done nothing wrong,
you have nothing to fear.
| Quote: |
Affidavit of Richard Tomlinson
www.alfayed.com
(to Judge Herve Stephan)
I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6
officer, of Geneva, Switzerland hereby declare:
1. I firmly believe that there exist documents
held by the British Secret Intelligence Service
(MI6) that would yield important new evidence
into the cause and circumstances leading to the
deaths of the Princess of Wales, Mr Dodi Al
Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in August
1997.
2. I was employed by MI6 between September 1991
and April 1995. During that time, I saw various
documents that I believe would provide new
evidence and new leads into the investigation
into these deaths. I also heard various rumours,
which though I was not able to see supporting
documents I am confident were based on solid
fact.
3. In 1992, I was working in the Eastern
European Controllerate of MI6 and I was
peripherally involved in a large and complicated
operation to smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry
out of the then disintegrating and disorganised
remnants of the Soviet Union. During 1992, I
spent several days reading the substantial files
on this operation. These files contain a wide
miscellany of contact notes, telegrams,
intelligence reports, photographs etc, from
which it was possible to build up a detailed
understanding of the operation. The operation
involved a large cast of officers and agents of
MI6. On more than one occasion, meetings between
various figures in the operation took place at
the Ritz Hotel, Place de Vendome, Paris. There
were in the file several intelligence reports on
these meetings, which had been written by one of
the MI6 officers based in Paris at the time
(identified in the file only by a coded
designation). The source of the information was
an informant in the Ritz Hotel, who again was
identified in the files only by a code number.
The MI6 officer paid the informant in cash for
his information. I became curious to learn more
about the identity of this particular informant,
because his number cropped up several times and
he seemed to have extremely good access to the
goings on in the Ritz Hotel. I therefore ordered
this informants personal file from MI6's central
file registry. When I read this new file, I was
not at all surprised to learn that the informant
was a security officer of the Ritz Hotel.
Intelligence services always target the security
officers of important hotels because they have
such good access to intelligence. I remember,
however, being mildly surprised that the
nationality of this informant was French, and
this stuck in my memory, because it is rare that
MI6 succeeds in recruiting a French informer. I
cannot claim that I remember from this reading
of the file that the name of this person was
Henri Paul, but I have no doubt with the benefit
of hindsight that this was he. Although I did
not subsequently come across Henri Paul again
during my time in MI6, I am confident that the
relationship between he and MI6 would have
continued until his death, because MI6 would
never willingly relinquish control over such a
well-placed informant. I am sure that the
personal file of Henri Paul will therefore
contain notes of meetings between him and his
MI6 controlling officer right up until the point
of his death. I firmly believe that these files
will contain evidence of crucial importance to
the circumstances and causes of the incident
that killed M. Paul, together with the Princess
of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.
4. The most senior undeclared officer in the
local MI6 station would normally control an
informant of M. Paul's usefulness and seniority.
Officers declared to the local
counter-intelligence service (in this case the
Directorate de Surveillance Territoire, or DST)
would not be used to control such an informant,
because it might lead to the identity of the
informant becoming known to the local
intelligence services. In Paris at the time of M
Paul's death, there were two relatively
experienced but undeclared MI6 officers. The
first was Mr Nicholas John Andrew LANGMAN, born
1960. The second was Mr Richard David SPEARMAN,
again born in 1960. I firmly believe that either
one or both of these officers will be well
acquainted with M Paul, and most probably also
met M. Paul shortly before his death. I believe
that either or both of these officers will have
knowledge that will be of crucial importance in
establishing the sequence of events leading up
to the deaths of M. Paul, Dodi Al Fayed and the
Princess of Wales. Mr Spearman in particular was
an extremely well connected and influential
officer, because he had been, prior to his
appointment in Paris, the personal secretary to
the Chief of MI6 Mr David SPEDDING. As such, he
would have been privy to even the most
confidential of MI6 operations. I believe that
there may well be significance in the fact that
Mr Spearman was posted to Paris in the month
immediately before the deaths.
5. Later in 1992, as the civil war in the former
Yugoslavia became increasingly topical, I
started to work primarily on operations in
Serbia. During this time, I became acquainted
with Dr Nicholas Bernard Frank FISHWICK, born
1958, the MI6 officer who at the time was in
charge of planning Balkan operations. During one
meeting with Dr Fishwick, he casually showed to
me a three-page document that on closer
inspection turned out to be an outline plan to
assassinate the Serbian leader President
Slobodan Milosevic. The plan was fully typed,
and attached to a yellow "minute board",
signifying that this was a formal and
accountable document. It will therefore still be
in existence. Fishwick had annotated that the
document be circulated to the following senior
MI6 officers: Maurice KENDWRICK-PIERCEY, then
head of Balkan operations, John RIDDE, then the
security officer for Balkan operations, the SAS
liaison officer to MI6 (designation MODA/SO, but
I have forgotten his name), the head of the
Eastern European Controllerate (then Richard
FLETCHER) and finally Alan PETTY, the personal
secretary to the then Chief of MI6, Colin McCOLL.
This plan contained a political justification
for the assassination of Milosevic, followed by
three outline proposals on how to achieve this
objective. I firmly believe that the third of
these scenarios contained information that could
be useful in establishing the causes of death of
Henri Paul, the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al
Fayed. This third scenario suggested that
Milosevic could be assassinated by causing his
personal limousine to crash. Dr Fishwick
proposed to arrange the crash in a tunnel,
because the proximity of concrete close to the
road would ensure that the crash would be
sufficiently violent to cause death or serious
injury, and would also reduce the possibility
that there might be independent, casual
witnesses. Dr Fishwick suggested that one way to
cause the crash might be to disorientate the
chauffeur using a strobe flash gun, a device
which is occasionally deployed by special forces
to, for example, disorientate helicopter pilots
or terrorists, and about which MI6 officers are
briefed about during their training. In short,
this scenario bore remarkable similarities to
the circumstances and witness accounts of the
crash that killed the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al
Fayed, and Henri Paul. I firmly believe that
this document should be yielded by MI6 to the
Judge investigating these deaths, and would
provide further leads that he could follow.
6. During my service in MI6, I also learnt
unofficially and second-hand something of the
links between MI6 and the Royal Household. MI6
are frequently and routinely asked by the Royal
Household (usually via the Foreign Office) to
provide intelligence on potential threats to
members of the Royal Family whilst on overseas
trips. This service would frequently extend to
asking friendly intelligence services (such as
the CIA) to place members of the Royal Family
under discrete surveillance, ostensibly for
their own protection. This was particularly the
case for the Princess of Wales, who often
insisted on doing without overt personal
protection, even on overseas trips. Although
contact between MI6 and the Royal Household was
officially only via the Foreign Office, I learnt
while in MI6 that there was unofficial direct
contact between certain senior and influential
MI6 officers and senior members of the Royal
Household. I did not see any official papers on
this subject, but I am confident that the
information is correct. I firmly believe that
MI6 documents would yield substantial leads on
the nature of their links with the Royal
Household, and would yield vital information
about MI6 surveillance on the Princess of Wales
in the days leading to her death.
7. I also learnt while in MI6 that one of the
"paparazzi" photographers who routinely followed
the Princess of Wales was a member of "UKN", a
small corps of part-time MI6 agents who provide
miscellaneous services to MI6 such as
surveillance and photography expertise. I do not
know the identity of this photographer, or
whether he was one of the photographers present
at the time of the fatal incident. However, I am
confident that examination of UKN records would
yield the identity of this photographer, and
would enable the inquest to eliminate or further
investigate that potential line of enquiry.
8. On Friday August 28 1998, I gave much of this
information to Judge Herve Stephan, the French
investigative Judge in charge of the inquest
into the accident. The lengths, which MI6, the
CIA and the DST have taken to deter me giving
this evidence and subsequently to stop me
talking about it, suggests that they have
something to hide.
9. On Friday 31 July 1998, shortly before my
appointment with Judge Herve Stephan, the DST
arrested me in my Paris hotel room. Although I
have no record of violent conduct I was arrested
with such ferocity and at gunpoint that I
received a broken rib. I was taken to the
headquarters of the DST, and interrogated for 38
hours. Despite my repeated requests, I was never
given any justification for the arrest and was
not shown the arrest warrant. Even though I was
released without charge, the DST confiscated
from me my laptop computer and Psion organiser.
They illegally gave these to MI6 who took them
back to the UK. They were not returned for six
months, which is illegal and caused me great
inconvenience and financial cost.
10. On Friday 7th August 1998 I boarded a Qantas
flight at Auckland International airport, New
Zealand, for a flight to Sydney, Australia where
I was due to give a television interview to the
Australian Channel Nine television company. I
was in my seat, awaiting take off, when an
official boarded the plane and told me to get
off. At the airbridge, he told me that the
airline had received a fax "from Canberra"
saying that there was a problem with my travel
papers. I immediately asked to see the fax, but
I was told that "it was not possible". I believe
that this is because it didn't exist. This
action was a ploy to keep me in New Zealand so
that the New Zealand police could take further
action against me. I had been back in my
Auckland hotel room for about half an hour when
the New Zealand police and NZSIS, the New
Zealand Secret Intelligence Service, raided me.
After being detained and searched for about
three hours, they eventually confiscated from me
all my remaining computer equipment that the
French DST had not succeeded in taking from me.
Again, I didn't get some of these items back
until six months later.
11. Moreover, shortly after I had given this
evidence to Judge Stephan, I was invited to talk
about this evidence in a live television
interview on America's NBC television channel. I
flew from Geneva to JFK airport on Sunday 30
August to give the interview in New York on the
following Monday morning. Shortly after arrival
at John F Kennedy airport, the captain of the
Swiss Air flight told all passengers to return
to their seats. Four US Immigration authority
officers entered the plane, came straight to my
seat, asked for my passport and identity, and
then frogmarched me off the plane. I was taken
to the immigration detention centre,
photographed, fingerprinted, manacled by my
ankle to a chair for seven hours, served with
deportation papers (exhibit 1) and then returned
on the next available plane to Geneva. I was not
allowed to make any telephone calls to the
representatives of NBC awaiting me in the
airport. The US Immigration Officers - who were
all openly sympathetic to my situation and
apologised for treating me so badly - openly
admitted that they were acting under
instructions from the CIA.
12. In January of this year, I booked a chalet
in the village of Samoens in the French Alps for
a ten day snowboarding holiday with my parents.
I picked up my parents from Geneva airport in a
hire car on the evening of January 8, and set
off for the French border. At the French customs
post, our car was stopped and I was detained.
Four officers from the DST held me for four
hours. At the end of this interview, I was
served with the deportation papers below
(exhibit 2), and ordered to return to
Switzerland. Note that in the papers, my
supposed destination has been changed from
"Chamonix" to "Samoens". This is because when
first questioned by a junior DST officer, I told
him that my destination was "Chamonix". When a
senior officer arrived an hour or so later, he
crossed out the word and changed it to
"Samoens", without ever even asking or
confirming this with me. I believe this is
because MI6 had told them of my true
destination, having learnt the information
through surveillance on my parent's telephone in
the UK. My banning from France is entirely
illegal under European law. I have a British
passport and am entitled to travel freely within
the European Union. MI6 have "done a deal" with
the DST to have me banned, and have not used any
recognised legal mechanism to deny my rights to
freedom of travel. I believe that the DST and
MI6 have banned me from France because they
wanted to prevent me from giving further
evidence to Judge Stephan's inquest, which at
the time, I was planning to do.
13. Whatever MI6s role in the events leading to
the death of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al
Fayed and Henri Paul, I am absolutely certain
that there is substantial evidence in their
files that would provide crucial evidence in
establishing the exact causes of this tragedy. I
believe that they have gone to considerable
lengths to obstruct the course of justice by
interfering with my freedom of speech and
travel, and this in my view confirms my belief
that they have something to hide. I believe that
the protection given to MI6 files under the
Official Secrets Act should be set aside in the
public interest in uncovering once and for all
the truth behind these dramatic and historically
momentous events.
The above testimony was made to the French
inquiry into Princess Diana's death, headed by
Judge Herve Stephan and subsequently ignored by
both the inquiry itself and the media. Since
testifying, Britain's security establishment has
hounded Tomlinson to the point where he now
lives in virtual exile in Cannes, France.
However, he has not entirely disappeared and now
keeps a weblog detailing his ongoing skirmishes
with both French and British authorities. |
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2
Conclusion:
Mishcon + Tomlinson = Means + Motive + Opportunity
Therefore:
For Mishcon, wait until he dies.
For Tomlinson, use the Official Secrets Act.
Then declare to the world
"At the moment there is not a shred of evidence given to
me about any of these allegations."
Easy.
ps tal,the "whore" allegation is here
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=287 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this
forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Profile
Log
in to check your private messages | 
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Log
in 
Register
