Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Keith Allen, the father of Lily Allen (pop singer),actor,documentary maker et al has made an as-yet-unseen documentary about Princess Diana. It's apparently causing an uproar for what it claims to show, a photograph of the late princess as she lay dying after the car crash in a Paris tunnel.
The film 'Unlawful Killing,' alleges that Diana predicted her own death by "accident" four years before it happened and that the royal family and other British officials have conspired in an elaborate cover-up.
The 90-minute film, which Allen calls "the inquest of the inquest," is reportedly backed by Mohammed Fayed, (well there's a surprise) whose son Dodi also died in the infamous crash. The film will be screened this Friday at Cannes but British cinemas have refused to show it due to the graphic detail.
Allen says. "It's a conspiracy organised not by a single scheming arch-fiend, but collectively by the British establishment -- judges, lawyers, politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors.
Well what do forumites think? Was she about to marry Dodi? Was she carrying his baby? and was there a cover up after the accident?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
this dosent bother me as there has been so many conspiracy therorys over the years,as for fayed he is obsessed with cover ups etc.he must have spent millions trying to prove it.whether it was murder or a fatel acident no one will ever find out.
one day Brian One Day
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
So this "new" film will be a hash up of all the theories that have been heard and we have been bored with before. After all this time, Diana's family and fanatic followers apart, do the public really care.
Answer to Marek's last questions, maybe, I doubt it, no.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
sounds like another tasteless attempt to make easy money.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
agreed Howard.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Sadly, Diana still sells papers, books, films etc. I wonder how much consideration is given to the impact these sensational items must have on her sons.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i shudder to think how they would react to see a photo of their mother laying dying.
good to hear that our cinemas are not showing it.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Howard
The photo can be seen on the net. Problem is ban it and it attracts more goulish attention. A sad fact of life.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
I can't get my head around the idea that someone would search the internet for pictures of the dead and dying. A clear line needs to be drawn between what is IN the public interest and what is OF interest to the public. A picture of a dying baby in Africa would, to my mind, be justifiable in that it may prick consciences and create action. A picture of a dying princess unable to shield herself is, to my mind, an unjustifiable intrusion and very questionable journalism.
The press must be free but with that comes the responsibility of self-censorship to steer it away from voyeurism and sensationalism.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Mark
I didn't say I had viewed it or searched for it, I simply stated that by banning it people become curious and look for it. Look what the Thatcher govt did to the Spycatcher book by banning that ,it became an overnight best seller around the world.
Finally and only to play devils advocate to your argument above..how many forumites have ,over the years, viewed the slaying of JFK on TV. What's the difference?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I'M in two minds on this one.
yer sure this geezer is out to make a fast buck on the story, but sadly that's how the system works at the moment/.
but there were a lot of suspicion at the time of the ladies death,
it could well of just been the driver being drunk, or the press chasing them and driver under the influence not re acting properly
that we will never know
but the cover up could also be a theory, dianna was a very popular figure
and was not over liked by the royal family(in some cases understandable)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Marek
I didn't say that you had viewed or searched for it either; that was your inference.
I take your point about banning and the way that can make something more desirable but does that mean that no line needs to be drawn or no attempt made? I find the showing of anyone's death on mass media deplorable and I worry that we are becoming inured to such things as we lose our sense of reality. The beheading of hostages, the assassination of presidents or tyrants seem to me to have no place in our homes. Most broadcasters stop footage before graphic scenes and I hope this will continue.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Interesting that after the Bashir interview Diana was a "manipulative cow" then after her death she was a "universally beloved saint". In reality probably a troubled girl doing gtood work publicising the horror of land mines while never sorting out her private life (had she ever been allowed one).
Given the modern appetite for conspiracies the film is no surprise and is best ignored.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
