Diana Inquest: MI6 'Did Not' Spy On The Princess & Dodi
Written by Joanne Leyland
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
An MI6 employee has told the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and
Dodi Fayed that the overseas arm of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) was not
spying on the couple at the time of their deaths.
A female manager at MI6 whose identity will, as previously reported here, remain
hidden throughout her appearance told the High Court that she actively searched
the computers at MI6 for files pertaining to the 36-year-old princess and her film producer boyfriend.
She also discovered no
files on the electronic database relating to Diana or Dodi and no
evidence of plans relating to their movements in Paris in August 1997.
Three MI6 officers are appearing at the inquest today, following which a
further group of retired and serving agents will also give evidence.
All have been called to give evidence by the coroner Lord Justice Scott-Baker in response
to the allegations of Mohamed Al Fayed that his son and the princess were the
victims of a "murder" plot implemented by MI6 on the orders of Prince Philip, the Royal Family and the British Establishment.
What the secret service does is probably very complicated.
And as m-m said "secret".
I really am taking a course in strategy and policy, and we really are analyzing 10-k files and then expected to sumarize in 10 pages.
If efficiency as a building block overides quality and customer response, what do they think is going to happen to the evidence.
Programming, and loops, are part of a system.
And I just experienced a silly thing today, getting my skim milk for coffee, using my debit card, I found the "system" was down, and no one reported it, cause it was a "local" issue, because someone in the system thought someone else had reported it.
And speaking to some of the people working at the bank, someone may be afraid they will be accused of sexual harrassment or something, cause some of them wear enough war paint, it makes you wonder, and of course reading lips to make up for problems with auditory processing might complicate matters too.
Of course carrying cash, is the answer, but then you have to count the change to get the right change.
And if a person appears "austistic" or something,with too much repeating or rocking, you better believe getting the wrong change is a daily concern.
Life is always simpler when one excludes the oddities of course.
Name: M-M
Comment: When it comes to a Secret Service with some of it having the 'right to kill' , do we really expect them to admit to anything ? I imagine their policy is deny , deny , deny . It would have to be
Name: Rachel
Comment: The first responders responded according to policy in France, where the policy is to get people stabilized at the scene and then move them to a hospital. That is different from the policy in North America, but it is the policy in France. Once in the ambulance, they had to stop the ambulance to give her cardiac massage in order to revive her. They took her to the best hospital in Paris for her kind of injury. I believe that the French medical workers did the best that they could for Diana.
Name: Monika
Comment: Emily, I answered this question in the "BREAKING NEWS: Coroner Recalls Burrell To Diana Inquest" article. Not sure if you saw it......
Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg
Comment: Oh, come now, Exploora. It's just not that complicated.
Somebody established the policy that First Responders (in the case of an assassination-try against Diana) WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE EFFECTIVE nor to actually get her to the hospital.
Somebody wrote that policy, or spoke it, to the First Responders. Who WAS THAT?
If she had been promptly carried to the hospital, she would have survived even that attempt on her life. But no, the First Responders (ambulance and police) let her bleed to death in the car!
There has to be a simple (chain-of-command) reason for such negligence.
EEWC
Name: exploora
Comment: What I have learned in this course about policy, is there is hardly any room for evidence on the form, you are expected to analyze hundreds of pages and write a report of about 10 pages, and the people who do this well get the best marks, apparently you don't get extra marks for including sources of evidence.
So does anyone wonder how the little clues that Di's "PR" situation was posing a threat to her safety were missed or got lost in white space, and resulted in blank looks.
Then just take a course in strategy and policy and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Even serious issues relating to how big container boats tip when spec sheets are not followed to the T, possibly take up too much space.
Does anyone wonder why there are so many big ship accidents?
Do I wonder how or why our Queen of the North sunk, or why there are so many oddities in Di's "accident"? The answer usually lies in the white space and blank "educated" look.
Name: exploora
Comment: What I am learning in my course about policy, is the people who get the best marks are the ones, who can say as little as possible, as economically as possible, using the best english as possible, and making a person feel that everything is under control. Even when risks pose a serious threat by being unmanageable.
If such threats don't fit the report form, it seems it is ok to leave them out.
Or the other extreme is used, exhaust a person, by combining nuisances with actual threats, creating unmanageable paper work for the adversary.
And all the "white" space missed of course, is what the 19 men with box cutters were possibly able to exploit.
Di would have been the last person to betray her country.
It is even possible she was concerned that someone might take a serious loss on the trinkets, or Charles would be embarrassed, if she changed her mind about the marriage.
And why does the secret service need to be used to spy on the RF, when the tabloids have conditioned the public to spy on them. Di didn't have much personal space, of course common sense would dictate, if she lost anymore personal space, she would have been squeezed out of the picture. This situation was possibly designed by fools who wanted a piece of Di.
Security is often about just staying inside, not going out right into the mist of danger. Of all the hotels in the world, Di couldn't picked a better hotel to get stuck in.
To go out in that ruckus was crazy, especially if you didn't want your photo taken.
Dodi and Di had money, most people can only dream about, plus, if I understand it right, Dodi's father owned the hotel.
Cost would have not been an issue, if they had stayed put. Look at what it cost them because they did not stay put.
Name: Rachel
Comment: Diana dispensed with her protection officers because she was afraid that they were spying on her. Had she kept her protection officers, she would likely still be alive.
Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg
Comment: Soooo-- MI-5/6 were not noticing whether Diana's fears about being involved in a car crash that would assassinate her WERE true or not?
They didn't respond to her fears in any way, or at all?
Why, that's certainly different from the policy they would follow if she were part of the Royal Family, isn't it?
Hmm. And what do they do for a living, anyway, if not concern themselves with the well-being of the Royal Family?
Where did that policy derive from, and when did the change occur? Was Diana NOTIFIED she was "no longer under protection"?
EEWC
Name: Monika
Comment: It's difficult for something like this to be proven (or disproved) to everyone's satisfaction.
Name: anyacat
Comment: Of course there was no ploy. Of course Al Fayed and his supports consider this a lie and further proof of a cover-up
Name: Jean Sue Libkind
Comment: I'll bet even this won't satisfy Fayad. Has anyone figured out that, if there were spies, they might have been from the tabloids? All this talk about spies and bugs etc....people being offered money to spy on Di...it seems to me like something one of the papers might do....like getting a staff member to work at Buckingham Palace and report on the Tupperware.
