How money is being diverted to pro-immigration campaign fund

James Slack, Michael Seamark and Rebecca English — Daily Mail April 13, 2013

Princess Diana campaigned to have landmines abolished

The Princess Diana Memorial Fund, to which millions of her admirers donated money, has been hijacked by Left-wingers to fund a pro-immigration propaganda campaign.

Directors of the charity set up a secretive project called Changing Minds and then channelled hundreds of thousands of pounds into a string of associated organisations.

The aim of the scheme is to alter British attitudes to immigration – which are currently in favour of far stricter border controls.

Among some of its most successful achievements, it lists the establishment of a new ‘independent’ think-tank – criticised by a Labour MP as a front for Left-wing views on immigration.

The Migration Observatory is advised by a senior journalist on the Left-wing Guardian newspaper, and the husband of its star columnist, Polly Toynbee.

Last night Rosa Monckton, a close friend of Diana, described the decision as ‘outrageous’.

She said: ‘I don’t ever recall Diana expressing any interest in this issue to me, and we spoke a great deal about her passions and concerns, particularly at the time that she was cutting down her charitable commitments.

‘She never wanted to be a figurehead or to be used overtly for lobbying purposes. To the extent that she remained involved in charitable work, it was of a purely practical nature, such as the removal of land mines, and the care of people with AIDS.

‘She was also always extremely careful never to get involved in anything that was remotely divisive along party political lines.’

The Diana Fund was established within days of Diana’s death in 1997, in response to the unprecedented outpouring of public grief.

Its coffers were filled with £38million from the sale of the Elton John record Candle in the Wind (Goodbye England’s Rose) – which sold five million copies in the UK alone. Another £34million was raised from individual donations from a distressed public, community groups and companies. Donations included individual 50p pieces sent by pensioners.

Later, a further £66million was raised through investments and commercial partnerships.

Initially, many of the grants from the Fund were paid to organisations closely associated with the Princess, such as Great Ormond Street Hospital. But, in 2007, its directors and trustees – who include a campaigner against the Government’s benefit cuts – dramatically changed direction.

Since then, the Memorial Fund has spent a total of £7,195,575 on 91 grants, made to 79 different organisations working on behalf of immigrants and asylum seekers.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this new strategy was the Changing Minds project, elements of which have received at least £820,0000.

The Observatory has been paid £350,000 over the last three years. It does not mention Changing Minds in its self-description or output, and there has been little public mention of the ‘propaganda’ project.

According to strategy documents written by the Diana Fund, Changing Minds exists to address ‘the plight of asylum seekers and their children in the UK by seeking to track, inform and influence public attitudes towards migrants, refugees and asylum seekers’.

But last year, a conference of the Association of Charitable Funders said the work was designed to achieve ‘attitudinal change’ on ‘negative attitudes’ to all migrants. It described changing attitudes towards migrants as an ‘example of the sort of “wicked” social problem that foundations are increasingly likely to encounter’.

Opinion polls in Britain have repeatedly shown the public’s desire for a sharp reduction in net migration. This has infuriated the Left-wing establishment, which is a long-standing champion of large-scale economic migration.

The Diana Fund supports Changing Minds in tandem with a string of other charities and pro-immigration organisations. They include the Barrow Cadbury Trust – itself a recipient of a £40,000 grant from the Diana Fund so it could help fund Changing Minds – and a New York-based group named Unbound Philanthropy.

Unbound Philanthropy, which has given the Observatory £342,000, says it wants to ensure migrants ‘can ultimately thrive in a society that is comfortable with the diversity and opportunity that immigration brings’. It is ploughing huge sums into pro-immigration groups – including the Migrants’ Rights Network, the new British Future think-tank and  the Observatory.

Labour MP Frank Field says the Observatory, part of the COMPAS think-tank at Oxford University, has been set up ‘to try to undermine’ MigrationWatch, a campaign group for stricter immigration controls.

He said it was ‘trying to use the status of Oxford University to peddle Left-wing views on immigration’, adding: ‘People who gave money to the Diana Fund would be very surprised to learn it has donated huge sums to a propaganda effort to change public opinion on immigration.’

The Observatory’s media advisory board includes Zoe Williams, a writer on the Guardian, and David Walker. It is chaired by Mr Walker, a former communications director at the Audit Commission and Guardian journalist, who is married to Polly Toynbee – the paper’s leading columnist and a vocal critic of the Royal Family.

On the day of the wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton, Miss Toynbee described the event as Britain’s ‘Marie Antoinette moment’. Of the day itself, she asked: ‘Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves.’

Other groups involved in the Changing Minds project include the pro-immigration Institute for Public Policy Research, and the Migrants’ Rights Network. Both IPPR, an advocate of the benefits of economic migration, and MRN get money from the Barrow Cadbury Trust.

The directors of the Fund, until it was wound up at the end of last year, were headed by Lady Sarah McCorquodale, Diana’s eldest sister.

The others were David Isaac, the former chairman of the gay rights campaign group Stonewall, and Tahera Aanchawan. Mr Isaac is also a trustee of British Future, another major player in Changing Minds and which itself received £470,000 from the Diana Fund.

Miss Aanchawan publicly signed a petition for Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week, as demanded by a protester against benefit cuts.

Sir Roger Singleton, former chief executive at Barnado’s, stockbroker Terry Hitchcock, Dr Diana Leat, described as a leading voluntary sector researcher, and John Whitaker, who has worked within the charity sector for 20 years, were the other directors.

The different groups it has been supporting are intrinsically linked. Don Flynn, a key figure in the MRN, sits on the Observatory’s expert advisory board.

The Diana Fund was wound up at the end of 2012 and passed to the charitable foundation set up for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

A Palace spokesman said the foundation had not played any part in the controversial grant-giving. He made clear any residual income received for the Fund will go to the foundation – which will not continue the Fund’s grant-making in any way.

A spokesman for the Migration Observatory said: ‘The Migration Observatory was designed to provide accurate data and information to all contributors to the migration debate. Our work has been used and cited as a reliable source by politicians and newspapers across the political spectrum, including in multiple stories in the Daily Mail. This is a testament to our success in providing data and evidence that are useful, accurate, and non-partisan.’

Sir Roger Singleton said of Frank Field’s comments: ‘I am surprised to hear that. It is not my understanding of what the Observatory is all about.

Source

The Queen has received a £5million rise in funds she receives from the taxpayer to carry out her official duties.

The Sovereign Grant, which covers the running costs of the Queen’s Household, replaces the Civil List and is up 16 per cent on 2012.

It has been set at £36.1million for the 2013/14 financial year.

The figure has increased from the £31million allocated during the previous 12 months which included £1million to cover the extra costs of the Diamond Jubilee.

The Sovereign Grant replaces the old funding system of the Civil List and grants-in-aid and came into full effect at the start of the new financial year which began yesterday.

It also covers the maintenance of the royal palaces in England and the cost of royal travel for official engagements in the UK and overseas tours.

Under the new grant the Queen receives 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate, but from funds two years in arrears.

The Crown Estate’s 2011/12 accounts revealed profits of £240.2million and the final figure for the grant was rounded up to £36.1million – very close to the estimated amount – by the Royal Trustees in December.

Royal accounts released last year showed the cost to the taxpayer of supporting the monarchy rose marginally during 2011/12.

The Queen’s official expenditure increased from £32.1million in 2010/11 to £32.3million in 2011/12.

Around £10million is spent on the salaries of the Queen’s staff, from footmen to chefs in the royal kitchen – but wages have been frozen for a number of years.

The figure for official expenditure does not include the cost of providing security and police protection for members of the monarchy.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman stressed that the £36.1million sovereign grant awarded for this financial year was 15 per cent less in real terms than the royal household’s expenditure five years ago.

He said during this period the household reduced its expenditure in line with reductions in funding.

Because of this, key building and conservation works were postponed, resulting in a maintenance backlog.

The spokesman said the majority of the grant would therefore be spent on addressing the backlog of property works which need to be undertaken across the occupied royal palaces.

He added: ‘Such works will see the funds spent in the real economy creating work and opportunities.’

The money pays for the maintenance of Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews.

It is also used for the upkeep of parts of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks.

Source

21st Century Wire says… Top news story on the BBC and most UK mainstream media outlets last week was that the Queen of England, who turns 87 next month, caught a stomach bug but was released from royal King Edward VII hospital smiling and well.

Note that this is the very same royal hospital which produced a dead administrative worker before Christmas 2012, one Jacintha Saldanha, the alleged victim of a prank Australian radio prank. It was revealed that innocent Jacintha was not the main subject of the Aussie radio prank as she merely passed the phone over to someone else on staff, and was not ‘traumatised’ or depressed – as the press campaigned to the public, further fueling speculation that she was ‘suicided’ (killed) in order to send a message to public not to meddle in royal life, or to fulfill some other unknown purpose. Was it really a suicide? What was her motive? Will we ever know? 

Upon the Queen’s release, a photograph of her next to her nurse reveals – and proves, what many have speculated over the years, that there is in fact a secretive satanic and masonic culture which operates in and around Britain’s Royal Family. Notice the belt buckle of the Queen’s medical minder in the photo below, adorned with the symbol of the 5 tipped star pentagram along with the masonic compass.

Now we can understand the Masonic compass, as its a private, ‘Masonic’ hospital, but why is the occult pentagram? What does it mean? Look…

A closer look reveals the belt buckle of the royal hospital staff. Not so secret.

Does anyone else find this strange?

How much more proof do we need that the our planetary elite are hiding some hidden agenda from the world’s public who ultimately empower them? It seems that the royals are heavily affiliated with secret societies that the rest of the general public know very little about, and that, surely, things understood only in secret by ruling elites cannot advance ‘democracy’ in the 21st century.

 Source

A call to arms to all anti-NWO activists: Resist royal cyber-bullying with all available means

Three days ago, the Rebel Site got taken offline by its hosting firm under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The offence: I had republished the 2011 British documentary “Unlawful Killing” produced by Allied Star, a London based film company owned by Egyptian billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Al-Fayed. The documentary implicates – amongst other things – the British royal family in the murder of the couple and its cover-up.

 Youtube and Vimeo had already deleted the video a few weeks earlier, forcing me to host it directly on the Rebel Site. Two emails sent to me shortly after by the lawyers of my hosting firm unfortunately got intercepted by the spam filter. In those emails they advised me that they had received a complaint by a London based law firm, claiming the hosting of the video was in breach of their client’s copyrights. Since I didn’t receive those email I obviously couldn’t comply with their request, forcing my hosting company of 7.5 years to disable the site. 

Continues …

The family of the nurse who committed suicide after taking the Duchess of Cambridge hoax call has been denied legal aid for her inquest.

Relatives of Jacintha Saldanha fear that they won’t discover the full circumstances surrounding her death without lawyers present to challenge hospital chiefs, The Independent reports.

Saldanha was found dead by colleagues after answering a joke call from two Australian DJs while the Duchess of Cambridge was staying at the King Edward VII Hospital.

“The family is of the view they are being deprived their only opportunity to be assisted in a one-day or half-day hearing – the only hearing into what was a very tragic case,” their lawyer John Cooper, QC, who has been working pro bono, said.

“The Saldanha family believe the case will require some pressing questions of the hospital which the Coroner cannot ask.

“The family will be facing well-equipped parties. It is argued that families don’t need legal representation in Coroner’s courts because they are not adversarial, but that ignores the fact that other parties are represented because they can afford it

“The family believe there are questions to be asked about the hospital protocols that led to Mrs Saldanha being put in that job on that night.”

Saldanha, who was 46, left husband Benedict Barboza, 49, son Junal, 17, and daughter Lisha, 14.

Legal aid for inquests is only granted in special circumstances, such as if there is a wider public interest or if a relative is called to give evidence.

The inquest is being heard by Dr Fiona Wilcox and was adjourned until March 26.

Source  

Also see: Prank nurse ‘critical of hospital’ in one of three suicide notes

Keith Vaz and the Silence of the Saldanha Family

Death of a nurse: ‘I am devastated by the loss of my beloved wife’

The fact that the corporate media aren’t subjecting the alleged ‘suicide’ of Jacintha Saldanha to serious scrutiny should tell us that they are colluding in concealing a crime; just as they did in the aftermath of Princess Diana’s supposed ‘accident’.

The facts surrounding Jacintha Saldanha’s death simply don’t add up to ‘suicide’.

She was mother of two from a close-knit family, a highly regarded nurse working at a top-notch hospital and, most importantly, a devout Catholic too.   

Roman Catholicism frowns upon suicide.

What’s more Jacintha Saldanha did nothing more than pass on a phone call from two Australian DJ’s pretending to be British Royalty. What she did was hardly a crime, and certainly nothing to feel so guilty about as to commit suicide.

Moreover, in the aftermath of the prank call she expressed no undue distress over the incident. She wasn’t reprimanded by hospital managers and she didn’t even mention it to close family and friends. Yet at the scene of her alleged suicide she left not one but THREE suicide notes, one of which was reportedly critical of her colleagues.

Was this meant to silence any untoward questions from them with the burden of implied guilt?

Her family have already been effectively prevented from appearing before the media by establishment flunkey Keith Vaz.

So we have to ask: who would benefit from Jacintha Saldanha’s alleged ‘suicide’?

The only real beneficiaries, if one can call it that would be the next heirs to the British throne. In so far as it would deter others from trying to embarrass them or at least do anything involving them without prior approval.

The implied threat to journalists and news editors is clear: ignoring these ‘guidelines’ could have fatal consequences.

Now we are not saying that the members of the Royal House of Windsor ordered Jacintha’s death. More likely, it was elements within the British establishment with a vested interest in the continuation of the Royal House of Windsor that did so. In a similar way, although using different mode of operation, as they once did with Princess Diana.

Prank nurse ‘critical of hospital’ in one of three suicide notes

Megan Levy – Brisbane Times Dec 14, 2012

An apparent suicide note left by a nurse at the centre of the royal hoax phone call was critical of staff at the London hospital where she worked, according to a report.

Jacintha Saldanha, 46, was found dead at staff quarters near King Edward VII hospital in central London, just days after taking a prank phone call from 2Day FM radio presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian.

A coronial hearing into the mother-of-two’s death was told in London on Thursday morning (local time) that investigators found three apparent suicide notes, handwritten by Ms Saldanha.

One of those notes was addressed to her employers at the hospital and “contains criticism of staff there”, The Guardian reported, adding that it had received the information from two separate sources.

Another note dealt with the hoax call made by the two Sydney radio presenters, who posed as the Queen and Prince Charles in the prank call, while the final letter detailed Ms Saldanha’s requests for her funeral, the newspaper reported.

Two of the notes were found in the apartment where Ms Saldanha died and one in her belongings, and police have given Ms Saldanha’s family typed copies of the letters, The Guardian said.

Scotland Yard is investigating a number of emails which the inquest heard were relevant to the nurse’s death.

Detective Chief Inspector James Harman told Coroner Fiona Wilcox that police were investigating whether telephone calls made to and from Ms Saldanha’s phone in the days before her death could throw any light on her death, however the details of those emails and phone calls were not released at the brief hearing in London.

A spokeswoman for the King Edward VII hospital told The Guardian that no one in senior management knew the contents of the letters left by Ms Saldanha.

She said the hospital management “were very clear that there were no disciplinary issues in this matter”.

Both the nurses involved had been offered “full support” and “it was made clear they were victims of a cruel journalistic trick,” she told the newspaper.

The hospital has offered bereavement counselling for the family in Bristol, which they have decided to take up.

Ms Saldanha was found dead in her apartment three days after the DJs made the prank call.

She took the initial call and put it through to a colleague on the ward where the Duchess of Cambridge was being treated for morning sickness, who gave out information about her condition.

The hearing overnight heard that Scotland Yard detectives would be in contact with New South Wales police to interview witnesses and “put the best evidence before you” about the circumstances of the death.

The London inquest has been adjourned until March 26 next year.

Source

Keith Vaz must be the most serially corrupt and discredited MP sitting in the House of Commons today.

The Saldanha family live in Bristol and Vaz is MP for Leicester East, so why is he the individual giving so much time and attention to the heartbroken Saldanha family.

The record shows that it is unlikely to be because of his selfless loving heart.

The fact that it was he, the ultimate establishment whore, who was parked on this tragic family after this extremely puzzling death should concern us all. 

Mrs Saldanha was a fully qualified and very experienced nurse and therefore, surely, a fairly tough cookie.

She was, we are told, a ‘devoutly’ Catholic mother of two. Apart from the fact that suicide is regarded as a very serious sin under Catholic doctrine, it beggars belief that she would have ended her life over a small incident wherein she simply passed a phone call on to someone else, an act for which, we are assured, she received no criticism whatsoever from the hospital management.

We have heard absolutely nothing from this family relating to this alleged suicide.

Not a word.

If they find it incredible that she would have done such a thing, such private thoughts have been kept out of the public domain.

Could there be any connection between the silence of the Saldanhas and the fact that Keith Vaz has ‘befriended’ them.

Hmmm.

Today Mr Vaz said, outside the inquest, that the Saldanha family are “grieving in their homes”.

No exposure to media.

I wonder who convinced them this would be a good idea.

The theatre surrounding this ‘suicide’ is so tightly controlled, it looks, to the nth degree, like a security services operation.

Yes, the serially compromised and utterly corrupt Keith Vaz is the perfect man for such an important placement.

When the answer to “who benefits?” from this whole affair is……..

……ONLY the British establishment…….

………we are in familiar territory and none of us can be blamed for suspecting the very worst.

Source  

Also see: Death of a nurse: ‘I am devastated by the loss of my beloved wife’

Coming from a stable home with two teenage children and close family ties, the nurse who is reported to have killed herself following a prank phone call does not seem the suicide type.

Hospital managers had not reprimanded Jacintha Saldanha after the call from two DJs posing as British royalty because, even though she was duped, she said absolutely nothing that could embarrass her patients.

(See a transcript of the phone call here)

So why did she commit “suicide”?

It doesn’t make sense. Or as one neighbour who lived close to her put it:

“I can’t help thinking there is more to this. It just doesn’t make sense when you have two children depending on you.”

Whatever the reason for Jacintha Saldanha’s death you can be sure her untimely end will deter others from trying to embarrass British royalty for the foreseeable future.

As the BBC puts it:

“Accused of having blood on their hands by furious listeners, the Australian DJs at the centre of the UK royal hospital hoax tragedy have been taken off air as the public backlash intensifies.” 

Emily Dugan, Andrew Buncombe – The Independent Dec 9, 2012

When Jacintha Saldanha’s husband made his daily phone calls home to their family in Mangalore last week, everything had seemed exactly as normal. He chatted to his mother about the usual things and there were no signs of the tragedy that was about to engulf them.

On Friday morning Mrs Saldanha, 46, was found dead after an apparent suicide and her husband, Benedict Barboza, had to make a very different phone call home.

The events that led to that moment have been all too public. Three days before she was found unconscious at staff accommodation near the King Edward VII’s Hospital in central London, the hard-working nurse had been on duty early in the morning and put through a telephone call from Australian radio DJs posing as the Queen and Prince Charles. The DJs went on to obtain personal information about the Duchess of Cambridge, who was being treated there for severe morning sickness and the ensuing furore about the hospital and the radio station led news bulletins around the world.

While the world chattered about the events, a silent, personal tragedy was unfolding. Even those closest to Mrs Saldanha did not see it coming. Carmine Barboza, the nurse’s mother-in-law, who lives in southern India, said her son had not mentioned the call or the controversy it had caused. “Benedict used to call every day but neither he or Jacintha said anything about what had happened. Everything seemed normal,” she told the Daijiworld.com website.

The exact reasons for Mrs Saldanha’s death are still little understood. A post-mortem to be held this week are likely to provide a medical explanation, but bigger questions remain over what might have caused her to take her own life.

Meanwhile, her husband, known to friends as Ben, and their two teenage children, Junal, 16, and Janice Lisha, 14, were at their home in Southmead, Bristol, yesterday, struggling to come to terms with the sudden loss of a wife and mother.

The 49-year-old hospital accountant posted on his Facebook page yesterday: “I am devastated with the tragic loss of my beloved wife Jacintha in tragic circumstances. She will be laid to rest in Shirva, India.”

The nurse’s sister, Cerolin D’Souza, told reporters that they were still waiting to receive detailed information. “We were wondering what happened, whether she met with an accident, when she was returning home from the hospital,” she said. When she spoke to her sister’s husband he was overcome with emotion. “When I asked what happened, he was not able to communicate and he broke down,” she said.

Originally from India, the family moved to the UK from the Mangalore region nine years ago. Mrs Saldanha worked hard, splitting her time between the family’s home in Bristol and staff lodgings at the hospital in London where she worked.

Working in an age when nurses are often criticised for not caring, Mrs Saldanha was quite different. Friends described her as a “lovely, lovely person” who was so dedicated to the profession that she used to spend her days off walking a neighbour with dementia to the shops.

She qualified as a nurse at the Father Muller College of Nursing in Mangalore and registered as a nurse in Britain in 2003. She married Mr Barboza in 1993 and the couple moved to Muscat before settling in the UK.

Neighbours of Mrs Saldanha’s family suggested yesterday that there may have been more pressing concerns, unknown as yet, on the mind of the nurse. Dudley Todd, 79, who lives nearby at Coldbeck Close, said: “I can’t help thinking there is more to this. It just doesn’t make sense when you have two children depending on you.”

Neighbour Mary Atwell, 56, said: “She was a lovely, lovely person who always spoke to you when you saw her in the street. The kids were always polite and well behaved. The boy often played football on the green outside with his friends.

“She must have taken the whole thing very badly because I don’t think the hospital disciplined her for what happened. She simply couldn’t live with herself, I suppose. But you could always see that she was very dedicated to her job. She was a lovely person. She used to walk an elderly neighbour who has dementia, who lives a few doors along, down to the shops and back.”

She answered Tuesday’s call from Australia’s 2Day FM DJs Mel Greig and Michael Christian only because she was on night duty, and at 5.30am there was no receptionist. It was not even she who divulged the personal details about the duchess; she transferred the DJs to another nurse, who gave details of her condition.

Flowers were left outside the King Edward VII’s Hospital’s nurses’ block yesterday. Attached to the red, white and blue flowers, a note from nurses at the hospital read: “Dear Jacintha, our thoughts are with you and your family. From all your fellow nurses, we bless your soul. God bless.”

The hospital sent a strong protest letter yesterday to the owners of the radio station, condemning the prank phone call that led to her death. The letter concluded: “I appreciate that you cannot undo the damage which has been done but I would urge you to take steps to ensure that such an incident could never be repeated.”

RCN chief executive Dr Peter Carter said in a statement: “This is tragic news, and the thoughts of all at the Royal College of Nursing go to the family of Jacintha Saldanha. It is deeply saddening that a simple human error due to a cruel hoax could lead to the death of a dedicated and caring member of the nursing profession.”

Rhys Holleran, chief executive of Southern Cross Austereo, said the DJs were “completely shattered” by her death. He said at a Melbourne press conference: “This is a tragic event that could not have been reasonably foreseen and we are deeply saddened by it. I spoke to both presenters early this morning and… they are completely shattered.” Since the prank, recorded and cleared by lawyers before it was aired, the station has been inundated with complaints. It has now pulled all its advertising and taken the show off air.

Many of the nurse’s relatives posted messages of condolence online. Below Ben Barboza’s tribute on Facebook, Jenson Alex Paid said: “Heartfelt condolences to you, Ben Uncle. May the good God grant her soul eternal peace.” Suzanna Gomes wrote: “Dear Benedict uncle and family, Very sorry to hear the news. Our heartfelt condolences. May her soul rest in peace.”

Source

So a 46-year-old nurse and mother of two commits suicide after being fooled by a phone call into thinking two prank playing Australian DJ’s were British royalty. As revealed in the transcript of the phone call below, she didn’t reveal anything that could seriously embarrass the royals and the hospital managers didn’t reprimand her either.

After all she did absolutely nothing wrong.

Yet days later the mother-two is found dead after committing suicide over the incident, apparently.

So why did she commit suicide over the incident, if indeed she did commit suicide?

It certainly seems an over-reaction but if nothing else her ‘suicide’ will deter others from trying to embarrass the royals. After all it’s not something the senior members of the Royal House of Windsor take lightly, as Princess Diana discovered.  

So why would a 46-year-old nurse and mother-of-two commit suicide over something as inconsequential as this? Don’t you think that her two children and the prospect of raising them would more important to her than the embarrassment of being fooled by a prank phone call? 

The outcry alone is enough to raise suspicions that this is being orchestrated. Foremost among those media outlets making great play over this is the BBC, as ever, with the rest of the British media dutifully following alongside.

 Now we are not saying that Jacintha Saldanha didn’t commit suicide but elements are at work to exploit her death to the full – to the benefit of British Royalty and their ‘privacy’.  

Read the transcript below, she divulged absolutely nothing that would compromise British royalty. 

We leave readers to decide but something is not quite right here. 

Kate hoax nurse found dead: Includes transcript of the call

Yorkshire Post – Dec 7, 2012

THE Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were “deeply saddened” today after a nurse who was duped by hoaxers in a call to the hospital treating pregnant Kate apparently took her own life.

Jacintha Saldanha was found an address near the King Edward VII’s Hospital in London this morning.

She had been the victim of two Australian radio DJs who impersonated the Queen and the Prince of Wales to obtain a condition update on Kate, who was suffering severe morning sickness at the private hospital.

In a statement St James’s Palace said: “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are deeply saddened to learn of the death of Jacintha Saldanha.

“Their Royal Highnesses were looked after so wonderfully well at all times by everybody at King Edward VII Hospital, and their thoughts and prayers are with Jacintha Saldanha’s family, friends and colleagues at this very sad time.”

The hospital said in a statement: “We can confirm the tragic death of a member of our nursing staff, Jacintha Saldanha.

“Jacintha has worked at the King Edward VII’s Hospital for more than four years. She was an excellent nurse and a well-respected and popular member of staff with all her colleagues.

“We can confirm that Jacintha was recently the victim of a hoax call to the hospital. The hospital has been supporting her at this difficult time.”

Hospital chief executive John Lofthouse said: “Our thoughts and deepest sympathies at this time are with her family and friends. Everyone is shocked by the loss of a much-loved and valued colleague.”

Lord Glenarthur, the hospital’s chairman, said: “This is a tragic event. Jacintha was a first class nurse who cared diligently for hundreds of patients during her time with us. She will be greatly missed.”

Scotland Yard said the death was not being treated as suspicious.

In a statement today, it said officers were called at around 9.35am this morning to a report of a woman found unconscious at an address in Weymouth Street, W1.

It said: “London Ambulance Service attended and the woman was pronounced dead at the scene. Inquiries are continuing to establish the circumstances of the incident.

“The death is not being treated as suspicious at this stage.”

The two presenters, Mel Greig and Michael Christian from 2Day FM, remarked during their show how their efforts were the “easiest prank call ever made”, as they put on mock British accents they later described as “terrible”.

Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Lofthouse condemned the hoax call, made in the early hours of that day, and said the hospital was considering legal action.

The presenters later apologised for their actions as did their radio station.

The station was expected to issue a statement about Ms Saldanha’s death later today.

Dr Peter Carter, chief executive and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said: “This is tragic news, and the thoughts of all at the Royal College of Nursing go to the family of Jacintha Saldanha.

“It is deeply saddening that a simple human error due to a cruel hoax could lead to the death of a dedicated and caring member of the nursing profession.”

The DJs made their call at around 5.30am on Tuesday and are thought to have been put through by Ms Saldanha, 46.

Another nurse then told them: “She’s sleeping at the moment and she has had an uneventful night and sleep is good for her.

“She’s been given some fluids to rehydrate her because she was quite dehydrated when she came in but she’s stable at the moment.”

The nurse added: “She hasn’t had any retching with me since I’ve been on duty and she has been sleeping on and off. I think it’s difficult sleeping in a strange bed as well.”

The prank call was deeply embarrassing for the hospital, which is the medical institution of choice for the Royal Family.

Mr Lofthouse said on Tuesday: “I’ve received advice that what the Australian broadcasters did may well have broken the law. On the other hand they’ve apologised for it so we’re going to have a long and careful think about what, if anything, we do.”

The prank call was pre-recorded and vetted by lawyers before being broadcast to listeners in Sydney.

In their initial apology the two presenters said: “We were very surprised that our call was put through. We thought we’d be hung up on as soon as they heard our terrible accents.

“We’re very sorry if we’ve caused any issues and we’re glad to hear that Kate is doing well.”

The royals have been the target of hoax callers before.

In 1995 Canadian DJ Pierre Brassard, pretending to be Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, was put through to the Queen.

The pair spoke for around 15 minutes and he even managed to elicit a promise that she would try to influence Quebec’s referendum on proposals to break away from Canada.

Today the DJs were bombarded with online abuse. The duo have continued to boast about the gag on Twitter while in a video on the radio station’s website they laugh and joke about it.

Greig giggles: “They were the worst accents ever and when we made that phone call, we were sure 100 people at least before us would have tried the same thing.”

Sitting beside her in what appears to be their studio, Christian adds: “We got through and now the entire world is talking.”

Meanwhile, a banner on the radio station’s website continues to proclaims it to be the “biggest royal prank ever”.

Partial transcript of call

Christian: Let’s give this hospital a call and see if we can get Kate Middleton or maybe even Prince Wills on the phone tonight. So the number is going in … oh Jeez, I hope this happens.

(PHONE RINGS)

Receptionist: Hello, good morning, King Edward VII Hospital.

Greig (Queen voice): Oh hello there, could I please speak to Kate please, my granddaughter.

Receptionist: Oh yes, just hold on ma’am.

Greig: Thank you.

Christian: Are they putting us through?

Greig: Yes.

(Laughter)

Christian: If this has worked, it’s the easiest prank call we have ever made. Your accent sucked, by the way, I just want you to know.

(Laughter)

Greig: I’m not used to playing 80-year-olds. (Phone connects) Kate, my darling, are you there?

Nurse: Good morning, ma’am, this is the nurses station, how may I help you?

Greig: Hello, I’m just after my granddaughter Kate. I wanted to see how her little tummy bug is going.

Nurse: She’s sleeping at the moment and has had an uneventful night, and sleep is good for her, as we speak. She’s been given some fluids to re-hydrate her because she was quite dehydrated when she came in. But she’s stable at the moment.

Greig: OK. Well, I’ll just feed my little corgis then (barking in the background). So when is a good time to come and visit her? Because I’m the Queen so I’ll need a lift down there. Charles! When can you take me to the hospital, Charles?

Christian (pretending to be Prince Charles): When will it be all right to come down and see her? Maybe in the morning or something? If that’s OK?

Nurse: I would suggest that any time after nine o’clock would be suitable, because the doctor will be in in the morning and we’ll just be getting her freshened up in the morning. I would think any time after nine.

Christian: Wonderful. Is Wills still there or has he gone home? I haven’t spoken to him yet.

Nurse: He went home at about half past nine last night. Actually, probably about nine o’ clock last night.

Christian: OK, Lovely. But they’re all OK, everything’s all right?

Nurse: Yes, she’s quite stable at the moment. She hasn’t had any retching with me since I’ve been on duty. And she has been sleeping on and off.

Christian: Wonderful.

Nurse: I think it’s difficult sleeping in a strange bed as well.

Christian: Yes, of course, it’s hardly the palace, is it!

Greig: It’s nothing like the palace is it, Charles? Oh, when are you going to walk those bloody corgis?

Christian: Mumsy, I’ll go and take the dogs outside.

Greig: I need to go and visit Kate in the morning. My dear, thank you so much.

Nurse: You’re very welcome.

Greig: Thank you, bye.

Christian: Goodbye.

(Hangs up)

(Laughter)

Greig: She was giving us real information!

Christian (as Prince Charles): Mumsy, I think that they believed everything we said.

Greig: I am the Queen: bow for me, bow for me.

Christian: Bow for you and your terrible accent.

Source

[Disclaimer: This email from a reader contains some credible information. I present it for your evaluation.]

I became involved in a very strange affair and through the course of it, a woman claiming to be a member of the Illuminati began to correspond with me.

We had a mutual interest in “pedigree collapse” which is caused by excessive inbreeding. Perhaps the most striking example of this condition can be found in the bloodline of the Hapsburg dynasty who through this practice wiped themselves out of existence. The last in the bloodline, Charles the Bewitched, was mentally and physically disabled as well as impotent. His  family members were closely related. His grandmother was also his aunt.

The late Queen Mother’s bloodline, the Bowes-Lyons carries the retardation gene which causes them to miscarry their male offspring. Five female members of the Queen’s family [her cousins] were born as imbeciles who had to be locked away in a mental institution for some 60 years.

Continues …

The unique marketing strategy traces the Royal Family’s connection to Vlad III, Prince of Walachia, more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler due to his penchant for impaling his enemies on stakes in the ground and leaving them to die.

Many academics have suggested that the character of Dracula, created by author Bram Stoker, was based on Vlad.

It is believed that the royal links with Vlad the Impaler come through Queen Mary, the consort of George V, and great-grandmother of the Prince of Wales.

The Romanian tourist board announced these royal links at the World Travel Market which opened in London today to attract British tourists.

Romania has already welcomed 7 per cent more Britons in the first three months of this year than in the same period last year, and as many as 118,000 British tourists visited in 2011.

There are further links between Romania and the Prince of Wales.

His great-grandfather’s cousin Marie married the crown prince of Romania and went on to rule the eastern European country after the First World War.

Last year Prince Charles claimed he was related to Vlad the Impaler, in an interview to promote the preservation of forests in Romania’s Transylvania region.

He joked: “The genealogy shows that I am descended from Vlad the Impaler. So I have a bit of a stake in the country”

Vlad the Impaler had a reputation for cruelty both against the Ottomans and against his own people. He skinned and boiled his victims, but his favourite form of torture was said to be impalement.

He is said to have killed as many as 100,000 in this fashion.

Source

Dating back to the very earliest civilisations Goddesses are depicted with their breasts exposed, from Babylon to Sumeria, Egypt, Greece and Rome, goddesses were depicted with their breasts exposed.

Ordinary peasants were never depicted bare chested, just Goddesses.

When the pictures of Kate topless hit the front pages, I immediately smelled a rat; it all seemed so staged…

Continues in full with videos …

A secretive power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince Charles to alter new laws is set to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.

The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it doesn’t adversely affect their private interests.

The application of the controversial veto was revealed by the Guardian last year and has been described by constitutional lawyers as “a royal nuclear deterrent”. Some believe its existence may underpin the influence Charles appears to wield in Whitehall over pet issues ranging from architecture to healthcare.

A judgment issued last week by the deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, means the Cabinet Office has until 25 September to release the confidential internal manual. It details how the consent of “The Crown and The Duchy of Cornwall” is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. If it fails to do so it could face high court action.

In the past two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills on everything from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007-09 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning. In Charles’s case, the little-known power stems from his role as the head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate that provides his £17m-a-year private income.

The government battled to keep the manual secret, claiming publication would breach legal professional privilege and a spokeswoman for the Cabinet Office said it was still deciding whether to challenge the ruling at the information tribunal.

Lord Berkeley, a Labour peer who was told to seek Charles’ consent on a marine navigation bill, said the commissioner’s decision was “absolutely right”. He said publication could shed light on a little-known procedure that allows the prince and the Queen “to fiddle around with bills to make sure they don’t affect their private interests”.

“People will start thinking what the hell is going on,” he said. “We are in the 21st century, not the 18th century and it is crazy to think they are even trying to do this. The royal family should give up this special privilege and we should all obey the law of the land. Just because they have private estates, private incomes and land from several centuries ago doesn’t mean they should have the right to interfere.”

The latest crack in the edifice of secrecy around Charles’s influence on public life came after a legal scholar, John Kirkhope, asked for Whitehall’s internal manuals on consulting the royals. He said “it was clearly in the public interest that citizens understand how laws are made and applied as well as the circumstances in which the Duchy of Cornwall is consulted”.

Kirkhope was researching a university thesis about the legal status of the Duchy and wanted to know how ministers decided whether new laws affected the “hereditary revenues, personal property of the Duke [Charles] or other interests”.

The Duchy of Cornwall runs farms and industrial property, builds houses and acts as a landlord as well as taking responsibility for large areas of the natural environment in south-west England. Its interests often overlap with Charles’s own in areas such as town planning where past interventions in public debate have seen the prince accused of abusing his influence to distort the democratic process.

In 2009 Charles caused a storm when he stepped into the public planning debate for the Chelsea Barracks housing development designed by Richard Rogers. He privately complained to the site’s owner, the prime minister of Qatar, that the design was “a gigantic experiment with the very soul of our capital city”. Rogers was promptly sacked and the scheme redrawn in line with the prince’s tastes.

Kirkhope said evidence he had gathered suggested the process of seeking royal consent for draft bills was not a mere formality.

“The correspondence indicates that the effect of the bills are explained to the royal household, including the Duchy of Cornwall, discussions ensue and if necessary changes are made to proposed legislation,” he said. “Departments of state have fought to avoid releasing correspondence which gives some hint of how the process works and the Cabinet Office has resisted releasing details of the guidance which determines whether the prince as Duke of Cornwall is consulted in the first place.

“As a citizen of the this country I have proper interest in ensuring the process by which laws are made should be transparent and that those who are given special privileges should be accountable. That is demonstrably not the case with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.”

Earlier this month Kirkhope forced the government to release edited emails showing how the Ministry of Justice consulted Buckingham Palace in 2008 and 2009 over the detail of the apprenticeships bill and how it would affect the Queen “in her personal capacity”. As an employer of 1,200 staff the royal household stood to be affected, along with thousands of other employers. The civil servants wanted to know “Her Majesty’s intentions in relation to the bill” before its second reading in the House of Commons.

One email refers to a note from the Queen’s solicitors, Farrer and Co, “setting out his instructions in relation to the application of the apprenticeships bill to Her Majesty in her personal capacity”.

The official states: “I understand from our discussion today that it might not be possible for what they want to happen without there being express provision in the bill”.

It echoes correspondence released last year in which a minister wrote to the prince’s office requesting his consent to a new planning bill because it was “capable of applying to … [the] Prince of Wales’ private interests”.

Buckingham Palace and Clarence House released a joint statement in response to the information commissioner’s ruling.

“The royal household understands that the Cabinet Office is considering the information commissioner’s decision and next step,” it said. “It would not be a matter for the royal household to challenge any decision”.

Source

Plans to release a controversial documentary on the death of Princess Diana to coincide with the 15th anniversary of her fatal car crash in Paris have been scrapped, I can reveal.

The film, bankrolled by former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed which claims the Princess was murdered in an Establishment plot involving Prince Philip, was due to be released in America on August 31.

But now, just a year after it was shown to incredulous critics at the Cannes Film Festival, Unlawful Killing has been dramatically withdrawn and will not be screened anywhere in the world.

It will come as a relief to Princes William and Harry, who are already steeling themselves for a Hollywood biopic about their mother, Caught In Flight, starring Naomi Watts as Diana.

The £2.5 million Al Fayed documentary Unlawful Killing, produced by polemicist Victor Lewis-Smith and narrated by actor Keith Allen, set out to challenge the result of the formal inquest into Diana’s death.

It accused everyone from the Royal Family, the judiciary and the U.S. government, to the French police, hospital staff and undertakers of being part of a cover-up in the deaths of Diana and Dodi.

Lawyers warned the production contained 87 contentious assertions which would have had to be cut before the film could be screened in Britain. This proved impossible.

Undaunted, the producers went ahead with plans to have it shown abroad. I understand they wanted to have the picture opening during the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year.

Negotiations with a U.S. distribution company concluded with an agreement to screen it. But the deal hinged on the filmmakers securing special insurance indemnification for the distributors covering the territories of the UK and France.

A spokesman for the producers says: ‘Unlawful Killing had been sold all around the world, including the U.S. But there was a specific form of insurance needed by the U.S. distributors to cover them for their UK and French offices.

‘This proved impossible to secure. As a result of this the film has been withdrawn in perpetuity.’

Source

Here in old Blighty the Queen’s ‘ Diamond Jubilee’ celebrations are just beginning.

Four days of blithering, bum-licking, mind-numbing media drivel.

The presumption being that we all want to participate in the glorious pageant.

Well, here’s my contribution to the party.

It’s a fair question.

Why do the British Royals have their male offspring circumcised by Jewish Mohels?

Why?

A few ideas suggesting possible answers occur, but maybe there are more:

1) The British Royals are Jewish.
2) The British Royals merely perceive themselves as being Jewish (the ‘line of David’ and all that).
3) The entire European aristocracy including the ‘Windsors’ have, over the last couple of centuries, intermarried with the banking elite and are therefore sort of Jewish.
4) Acting ‘Jewish’ is a kind of insurance policy. The Royals will be well aware what happened to their Russian cousins in 1917 after New York banker Jacob Schiff’s project (he funded Lenin and Trotsky) was successful. (see film below. The astonishing story of the takeover of Russia by western-financed Bolsheviks is worth two hours for anybody who wants to understand modern history)

Maybe someone out there has some better ideas.

I’m off to Spain for 3 days. This trip couldn’t have come along at a better time.

Up the Republic! 

Source

Almost half of Britons believe Britain has changed for the worse during Queen Elizabeth’s 60-year reign but most think that celebrations to mark her sixth decade on the throne will be good for business and Britain’s character, a poll showed on Monday.

Huge crowds are expected to celebrate 86-year-old Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee next week, which is expected to be marked by a concert at Buckingham Palace, a procession through London and a 1,000-strong flotilla along the River Thames.

An ITV News/ComRes poll found that 47 percent of those surveyed thought that Britain was not as good a place as before her reign, and just over half said they would not go to a jubilee street party or other celebration.

The poll did not say how Britons felt their nation had changed for the worse. Elizabeth has presided over the demise of Britain’s once vast empire and many Britons are now feeling the squeeze of tough government spending cuts to tackle a big budget deficit.

However, 80 percent said the jubilee celebrations contribute to Britain’s reputation as a country with its own distinct character, and 65 percent said the event was good for the economy. Only 14 percent opposed Britain having a monarchy.

Despite her age, many commentators believe Elizabeth remains an important figurehead in Britain and beyond, a symbol of stability and service that has taken on added weight during straitened economic times.

The wedding of Prince William, the queen’s grandson, to Kate Middleton last year helped boost the monarchy’s popularity.

ComRes interviewed 2,056 British adults in the period of May 25-28.

(Reporting by Mohammed Abbas; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Source

On 10th April 2012, Queen Elizabeth 2 bestowed on Camilla, wife of Prince Charles, the highest honour: Dame of the Highest Order of the Victorian Cross – for Services to the British Monarchy.  In normal circumstances this award is reserved for acts of heroism in the Armed Forces.

In this case, it means that Camilla, unlike Diana, has fully passed the Monarchy test – and is free – like Prince Charles – to do as she pleases.

She is now equal to Charles and the Queen in their personal lives.  Diana was never prepared to accept that situation – because she was horrified by what she saw from the inside. 

She was a Natural Woman who sought her equal in a Real Man.

For as long as Monarchy has existed – sex has been a key to the upper layer of royals.  Ruling monarchs can do as they please in sexual terms and bisexual behavior has been prevalent for all time. 

Centuries ago, brides could be as young as two-yrs-old! The catalog of European facts is shocking.  Anyone who ‘pleases’ a major royal sexually will be honored.  Many members of the Pop Industry have enjoyed honors for that reason only.

Diana hoped to break the mold.  That proved to be fatal.  She found no Real Men within British Monarchy.

The first Real Man she did find was the first to be suspiciously killed off – in another motoring accident – as a warning – to Diana.  She was convinced of that and those who know the bigger picture are also convinced of it.

He was Barry Mannakee (right) who was once her personal Bodyguard.  He also saw what went on first-hand and sympathized with Diana’s plight. 

That was not approved.  Barry was taken off duty to Diana and put with MI-6 Security. While on a motorbike mission, a very odd accident was set up.

Continues in full at source… 

Also see: Affidavit of Richard Tomlinson

A fringe candidate for next month’s French presidential election on Wednesday alleged that the Queen of England owes her fortune to drugs money laundered by “Jewish bankers in The City”.

Jacques Cheminade, an independent, is one of 10 candidates who has been cleared by France’s Constitutional Court to run in the April 22 first round of the battle to unseat incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy.

It ought to be a tough list to get on – former prime minister Dominique de Villepin and several other leading figures failed to make the cut – but little known Cheminade was one of the first to gather 500 mayors’ signatures.

Few in France have any idea what Cheminade stands for, as he represents no political party and has a low media profile.

But, now that the campaign proper has begun, French broadcasting fairness laws require he be given as much exposure as any other candidate, such as Sarkozy or opinion poll frontrunner and Socialist champion Francois Hollande.

Thus, Cheminade appeared on LCP television Wednesday, in a debate sponsored by AFP and other French media. He was asked about his support for US extremist Lyndon Larouche, a notorious conspiracy theorist.

In particular, he was asked whether the Queen is a drugs baroness.

“No, not all her fortune,” he replied. “There are many other sources, but it’s a series of trafficking operations within which, yes, there were drugs.”

Cheminade linked this claim to allegations about the Rothschild banking family, and compared the economic crisis to “the start of the Nazi regime and the measures it gradually put in place, as in the United States today.”

Voting will not begin for four weeks, but opinion polls track Cheminade’s support at less than one percent, or within the margin of error.

Source  

Coutts fined 8.75 million pounds for money laundering failures

Sudip Kar-Gupta – Reuters March 26, 2012

Coutts, best known as banker to The Queen, was fined 8.75 million pounds for “significant and widespread” failings in its money laundering controls, its second penalty for financial trangressions in four months.

Financial watchdog said Coutts had dealt inadequately with a type of clientele known as “politically exposed persons” – people whose prominent position in public life might have made them vulnerable to corruption.

“Coutts’ failings were significant, widespread and unacceptable,” Tracey McDermott, acting director of enforcement and financial crime at the Financial Services Authority (FSA), said in a statement on Monday.

“Its conduct fell well below the standards we expect and the size of the financial penalty demonstrates how seriously we view its failures.”

The FSA had previously fined Coutts, owned by Royal Bank of Scotland, 6.3 million pounds in November for failings related to the sale of a fund product during the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.

The latest fine comes after the FSA visited Coutts in October 2010 as part of a review into banks’ management of high-risk money-laundering situations.

The FSA found Coutts did not apply robust controls when starting relationships with high-risk customers and did not consistently apply an appropriate level of monitoring.

It gave no further details and did not indicate if any particular customers were a cause for concern.

CLIENT LIST

Coutts, which was founded by Thomas Coutts in the 18th century, is one of Britain’s best-known private banks and boasts a client list which has included sports people and pop stars as well as the British monarch.

The FSA said Coutts had started improving its anti money-laundering systems and had agreed to settle at an early stage with the regulator over the fine. If it had not done so, Coutts would have been fined 12.5 million pounds.

Richard Yoxon, managing director at Brand Finance – a consultancy which assesses the value of various corporate brands – said Coutts’ clientele would likely be disappointed by the latest fine, but added that steps taken by Coutts to improve its systems could help reassure concerned customers.

“No doubt the bank’s high profile, wealthy patrons will be concerned and disappointed by news of today’s FSA fine for failure to implement adequate money laundering controls,” said Yoxon.

“Certainly this news will prompt current and potential customers to reassess their relationship with the bank, but only time will tell if the Coutts brand will suffer any lasting damage. Coutts’ response to the fine will determine the longer term impact on brand,” he added.

“The bank’s statement that they remain committed to preventing any future failings may be enough to provide concerned customers with assurance than the bank can still be trusted with their financial affairs.”

Coutts last week sold its Latin American, Caribbean and African private banking arms to Royal Bank of Canada as part of its strategy to focus more on its key markets such as the UK, Switzerland, Russia, the Middle East and Asia.

(Editing by Myles Neligan and David Holmes)

Source 

Although there’s currently no reason to suspect the Royals, the fact of the matter, is that murdered human remains have been found at the Sandringham estate, currently occupied by The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Earl & Countess of Wessex.

They were informed of the discovery on Monday night [1]. The key word here being informed. This might seem like nitpicking to some, but if human remains had been found in the garden of any regular citizen, wealthy or on a council estate, would you expect them to simply be informed, or would the occupants be brought in for questioning?

This isn’t an accusation; I doubt the Royals are stupid enough to murder somebody and bury them not far from a house they actually do reside in. They’re probably more accustomed to advanced covert ops such as the “Boston Breaks” assassination method, which may have been used on Princess Diana according to some researchers.

It’s the principal of it all. Just because they were born in to a barbaric, authoritarian, inbred family, that has pillaged and conquered the world over, who now sit comfortably on the blood money of their ancestors, while simultaneously sponging off the tax payers during a deep recession, does that mean they’re above the procedures of law?

One resident told the Telegraph:

“It is just a stone’s throw from the Stud and the Royals’ house. It is very close.”

Another stated, “It is quite a bit of a shock, given the proximity to the grounds itself. The area is really not that far from Sandringham House”.

Royal shooting parties are thought to have used the area over the Christmas break, reports the Telegraph in another article.

A Norfolk police spokeswoman said: “The body is described as a young, white, adult female, aged between 15 and 23 years old, which has been at that site for a period estimated to be between a month and up to four months.” [2]

The body was discovered shortly after the Royals attended a church service on New Year’s day. Keeping up appearances the Queen was snapped on her horse just hours after the incident, rather than being questioned or offering help to the investigators.

One recent missing person case detectives are thought to be looking at is that of a 17–year–old Latvian, Alisa Dmitrijeva, who disappeared from nearby King’s Lynn.

There were concerns for the safety of the brown–haired teenager, who lived in Wisbech, Cambs and was reported missing on Sept 6.

In October last year the remains of an obsessive stalker were found within sight of Buckingham Palace, on an island in St James’s Park.[3]

Source

I was browsing a link sent in by the indefatigable Wasp, and came across the fact that the verdict of the Diana Inquest was not reported in the UK, and still hasn’t been. The verdict was nothing less than ‘unlawful killing’.

The website vigilantcitizen, talking about the film called ‘Unlawful Killing’ released in June 2011, writes -

Strangest of all was the media coverage of the verdict. Inquest evidence showed conclusively that the crash was caused by an unidentified white Fiat Uno and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were certainly not paparazzi, because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the crash. The jury understood this, bringing in a verdict of “unlawful killing” by unidentified “following vehicles”; yet within seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had blamed the paparazzi, and the rest of the media meekly followed suit. Which is why – three years on – barely anyone realises what the jury’s troubling verdict really was.

Why is the film being premiered next week at Cannes, three years after the inquest ended? Because British lawyers insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated. So rather than butcher the film, or risk legal action, we’re showing it in France, then the US, and everywhere except the UK. Pity, because at a time when the mindless sugar rush of the royal wedding has been sending British republicans into a diabetic coma, it could act as a welcome antidote.

People react to the movie after a showing in Ireland -

They all mention the land mine issue. If she had lived and gone ahead and married Dodi, she would no doubt have moved on from there to stand for peace between Moslems and Christians – not what was being planned for 911, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and others yet to come. Was she the first casualty of The War On Terror?

People remember September 11th 2001 as the moment peace was lost to the world. Maybe it was lost on August 31st 1997. People instinctively reacted as if it was a most significant moment in their lives. In retrospect, they were right to do so.

Source