>>2302
>the QE2 has interfered and banned it
lol

>>2302
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/may/13/keith-allen-diana-film-cannes

It was actually banned because Allen has refused to make cuts demanded by insurers who wanted to protect against libel suits. It doesn't seem to have surfaced in full online anywhere.

>>2304
OP here, thanks for that, it explains a lot.

First of all, it transpires that this is by Keith Allen, Lily Allen's dad, who did that weird and extrememly uncomfortable documentary on Nick Griffin recently. So we know he's a bit tinfoil-ish himself.

Then, in the first paragraph of the article, it quotes Keith as saying
>It's what the French call being an auteur.
Just like 'it's what the French call a 'table'. 'Auteur' is a word we don't translate in English, because, like lots of other words, we just use the original French. So whilst he's sort of right, it's extrememly ignorant to assume that 'Auteur' is a purely French word. English-speaking film critics use it without thinking. Just like 'table'.

>lawyers have demanded 87 cuts before it can be certificated.
I'm assuming they are lawyers acting on behalf of the BBFC? That seems weird. If not, then they are lawyers related to the UK's ridiculous libel laws.

>When Allen uttered his "auteur" line there were titters in the grand salon
not surprised, given what I said earlier.

>He also described the film as "forensic" and "not sensational" – perhaps forgetting that it contains an interview in which psychologist Oliver James opines that Prince Philip is a "psychopath".
The word 'forensic' means 'legally based'. Unless he's taking them to court, there's not much forensic about it. I assume he's using the word 'forensic' to mean 'scientific' which is totally different, and probably pseudo-scientific at best anyway.

>Other key evidence for this conspiracy included the fact that QCs swear allegiance to the crown, ergo cannot be impartial on the royal family
Just like how liars in court ergo can't be lying if they swear to tell the truth.

That was insightful, so thanks for posting, but it claims that 87 cuts were needed, without saying what they were, or why. I'll see if I can find the rejection on the BBFC's website tomorrow, unless someone else does it overnight.

>>2305
I don't think Keith Allen is especially tinfoilish, I think he is simply an annoying drug-addled fool who wanted to make a BRILLIANT trouble-making film and had the Al-Fayed backing to do so.

Then again the Royals really do not like it up 'em and have quite a lot of power at their hands when it comes to dealing with people who shitstir a bit too much - witness the expulsion of LaRouche groups from the UK in the 90s after the publication of http://archive.org/details/TheComingFallOfTheHouseOfWindsor

>>2304
It was leaded on some Russian sites, I watched it a few days ago.

It wasn't sensationalist really, there was a lot of evidence shown. Quite a lot of things I hadn't heard of before too.

I can't seem to find the links to it any more, and from what I've read, it's being suppressed. Shame, it was well put together.

Keith Allen is that most unfortunate thing, a middle-aged teenlad.

The film's director Keith Allen claims that it's not being released because the BBFC wanted 87 cuts. Without the certificate, it couldn't get a release here and can't be sold on DVD. What tends to happen in this situation is that the distributors or some other rightsholders still consider it potentially valuable and won't let it get out for free.

Though, when making up your mind, bear in mind that the film was financed by that bloke from Harrods, and the primary writing credit goes to Victor Lewis-Smith. Don't be surprised if it's just VLS metaphorically and literally having a laugh at Fayed's expense.

I dearly wish Richard Tomlinson was still blogging, his 2006/7 websites were very interesting and touched on Diana quite heavily. He was frightened off the internet by an armed bunch of Special Branch goons who invaded his French home and smashed his computers up, then reached an agreement not to talk about his MI6 days again in return for being left alone.

At the 2008 Diana inquest he said among many other things:

"I would firstly like to state that MI6 do have the capacity to stage accidents, whether by helicopter, aeroplane or car, and also that the strobe light was shown to us by the SBS at Poole during our training."

http://archive.org/details/BannedInTheUk while it lasts. It does get deleted fast from streaming sites.

If there was any doubt in my mind that Diana was murdered before I watched this film, there isn't any now.

It seems all too easy to dismiss anyone who questions the official version of history as a 'teenlad' (or an equivalent slur) but to me it seems like accepting the mainstream media version of the truth and attacking the 'tinfoil hat brigade' makes you much more of a teenlad. I'm talking about the kind of people who throw around terms like 'strawman' without fully grasping their meaning.

I would love to read or see a response to this video that examines the claims and questions within it and gives well reasoned arguments to explain that she (and the other two people in the car) died as a result of a tragic accident.

>>2324
Thank you for that, and for keeping this thread in mind when you found it.

>>2326
I've yet to see it under close scrutiny, but to play devil's advocate, the first few things I can think of are:

i) The film isn't trying to establish whether it was murder or not, only that the following inquiry was a complete balls-up of lies, misinformation and bias. So to draw the conclusion that she was definitely murdered would be your inference, not the film's absolute concrete evidence. Which brings me to

ii) Any 'evidence' that can be read between the lines of the film was mostly motive. There was very little forensic evidence regarding the crime scene and events of the night in question. Other than the ambulance, the rest of it was taken from eye-witness testimony and theory. A large focus is given to the white car and the motorbikes. But there's no evidence for either, other than that some photographer who was very loosely related to following Diana, happened to own one. He had a weird death as well, but again, that's only speculative motive. If he hadn't died years later, Diana would still be dead, so I doubt that could be taken in evidence. I don't think you can link two separate crimes as evidence for each other anyway, but I might be wrong.

The strongest thing is probably that the jury called it an unlawful killing, but I still reckon, as that's a legal term, there are plenty of other accidents which have gone down as that for one reason or another. And even if the jury had called it an accident, it wouldn't affect the evidence of the situation, it would only mean the inquiry was a bit more corrupt.

>>2324
http://consciousvideodirectory.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17448863-unlawful-killing-princess-diana-s-death

I found it here and watched it tonight. Surprisingly good actually.

Surely the Mitchell and Webb sketch did the best debunking of the Diana conspiracy theory.

>>2329
They're both far too posh to be considered reliable.

>>2328
I'm the least ITZ person I know, but the film is actually quite good and definitely thought provoking. I don't usually like Keith Allen either, but he does a very good job here.

>>2307

You can find it on that well-known "blocked" torrent site that works if you simply type in the IP address, now.

>>2334

http://194.71.107.80/torrent/7933487/Unlawful_Killing_-_The_Death_of_Princess_Diana_-_Keith_Allen

>>2302

Well I was enjoying it right up to the point where he started comparing them to the Nazis and going on about how expensive they are.

>>2336
Not if you have Virgin.

>>2337

http://pirateproxy.net/torrent/7933487/Unlawful_Killing_-_The_Death_of_Princess_Diana_-_Keith_Allen

>>2337
I'm with Sky and >>2335's link doesn't work for me either.

try
http://tpb.piraten.lu

Am I right that Keith Allen never actually submitted this film for the consideration of the BBFC? All I've heard is that lawyers advised it would require 87 cuts. But whose lawyers? His? Or someone else's? And why would lawyers advise on cuts, rather than waiting for the BBFC's ruling, then advising on how to appeal, or how to leak without betting arrested etc?

I'm under the impression that from a legal standpoint, this film is not 'banned in the UK', but Keith Allen has volunteered not to release it in the UK. If so, it's certainly been good publicity.

>>2328
This link definitely works..

>>2338

Works for me.

>>2340
>why would lawyers advise on cuts, rather than waiting for the BBFC's ruling
The distributors may have asked for it, to ensure that they'd actually be able to get the thing out if they took it on. The lawyers will have probably been asked to advise whether the thing was defamatory or not, because someone like Keith Allen would simply disregard anything he'd have been told beforehand.

>>2340
If anything deserves 87 cuts it's Keith Allen.

If my wife wrote a letter saying "my husband is plotting to kill me in my car in a few day's time" and then three days later she winds up dead in her car in weird circumstances... I mean irrespective of where along the sliding scale of royalist to anarchist you land, that's just dodgy as fuck.

I didn't think it was a great documentary, too much rhetoric and forced tension, and far from the "unbiased" claims of its maker. I actually liked his one on Nick Griffin better, at least that was basically just him chatting with the bloke.

Law fag here.

The lawyers advising 87 cuts are more then likely due to potential libel acting in Kieth Allens intrest, then the BBFC.

Most of the world has a policy where if you call someone a cunt, they have to prove they are not a cunt before they recive damages. but in britain you have to prove they are a cunt to not pay damages.

>>2359
Sitting here reading legal advice from someone who doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than".

I thought this afternoon was going to be more fun than this.

>>2359
>you have to prove they are a cunt to not pay damages
Which is the correct way to do it. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

>>2362

You mean like being innocent of defamation until proven guilty?

>>2363
Innocent of being a cunt until proven guilty.

>>2362>>2363>>2364

My understanding of English (and Welsh) libel is about damaging someone's character, not whether they're guilty or not. So if someone is secretly a prostitute-using cokehead gay nazi fetishist, and you out them in public, they can sue you for libel, even if it's true. There are a few other things I'm not sure about, such as whether a defence can be made if you have evidence, but there's also Ofcom rules regarding whether the person being accused was contacted for their side of the story and things as well. But I'm 99% sure that if a libel case is successful, it cannot be overturned or pardoned retrospectively if it comes out to have been true all along, because it still damaged character at the time.

>>2367
But if you win a libel case which is later found to be true and use knowing lies as part of your legal evidence, you do run the risk of being prosecuted for perjury. See the very unpleasant and rage-inducing Jeffery Archer and Monica Coghlan case - what an unbelievable scumbag this human being is.

On a lighter note this discussion reminded me of the wonderful Elton John line when he won a libel case against the Sun for accusing him of rent-boy antics with added noncing innuendo: "They can say I'm a fat, old sod. They can say I'm an untalented bastard. They can call me a poof. But they mustn't lie about me."'

>>2368
>use knowing lies as part of your legal evidence
Speaking out of my arse, I'd assume that that's part of a separate, criminal case. You would run the risk of criminal prosecution, but the libel case would remain unaffected. They would be two separate, independent cases, rather than one being an appeal or something of the other.

Robbie Williams once sued a paper for calling him gay. When gay rights lobbyists said that such an action was homophobic, as it suggested that being called gay was in some way damaging, Robbie replied by saying that had they accused him of being straight, he would have also sued.

>>2369
The perjury conviction seems to automatically invalidate the outcome of the libel case - can't find the legal ruling but http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1408852/Archer-settles-1.8m-libel-debt-with-newspaper.html

And Express Newspapers got a heap of unexpected money which they spent on pursuing Diana conspiracy theories and becoming a marginalised and odd section of the press, and thread is back on topic. Although it would have been fun to talk about dear old Mr ZAM again.

>>2364
innocent until proven cunty

>>2369
I'm a U.S. citizen from 4chan, a roll thread sent me to this site. I just want to say that way you actually admitted to talking out of your ass before doing so absolutely amazes me. I'm not some England fanboy (the states have those) or anything, but the higher quality of posts on the boards I've visited here is instantly noticeable.

>>2475
Thank you. We are also good at assassinations, money laundering and drug running under the cover of our intelligence agencies. You sage by ticking the little box here.

>I was once out with a mate and a couple of good looking girls in central London. Think we'd been to a couple pubs and were just wondering about. Anyway this old and obviously inebriated chap came up to us and started waffling on in an incredibly posh accent. I imagine he only started talking to us because of the lasses. He said he'd been at some celebrities 70th birthday bash and showed us the invite, can't remember who it was, some old reasonably famous actress I think. So we're talking rubbish for a bit, he talks about how he works for or is some sort of executive at the Phillips Morris tobacco company. Tells us we're fucking idiots for smoking and that people like him make millions from idiots like us killing ourselves. It was all pretty amusing. He went on about his time in Russia as I assume some sort of diplomat and how he'd had to have a couple of people "taken to a quarry". He then went on to say that he was responsible for/or at least had a hand in Diana's death and told us his name and to google it. When we did he was actually attached to the case and had been questioned as part of the investigation and whatnot. He may well have just been fucking with us but it always struck me as a rather odd and highly entertaining encounter. I'd say his name but I fear I'd see a couple of vans pull up outside and I might end up in a quarry somewhere.

> Post his initials?

>C.R. I might delete this post in a minute.

From this description of him and his evidence given online at the 2008 inquest, OP was talking about Brigadier Charles David McIver Ritchie, military attache at the Paris Embassy in 1997 and a man with a murky history.

>>2480
Fuck, this is why I didn't want to give out his name. If I end up dead in a sports bag I'm blaming you.

>>2481
You do realise that it may have been some posh old drunk a bit obsessed with the Diana case posing as Charles Ritchie? I hardly think he showed you any ID. No evidence that the Brigadier has ever worked for Phillip Morris either.

I see the Brigadier was Commander of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1988-90, at a time when the Force Research Unit was running amok and killing civilians. This is genuinely quite scary compared to the usual silly /boo/ standards.

"I was photographing a family of wild boar and a brand new Russian surface-to-surface missile system we'd not seen before happened to get in the way."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brigadier-medalled-with-russki-who-beat-him-up-1-1001109

Is this the man who spoke to you? It's the only photo I could find.

>>2483
Was a while ago and I was a bit pissed myself but I don't think so. Seem to remember him bein ga bit shorter and squatter. Could well be wrong though.

>You do realise that it may have been some posh old drunk a bit obsessed with the Diana case posing as Charles Ritchie? I hardly think he showed you any ID. No evidence that the Brigadier has ever worked for Phillip Morris either.

Yes that's entirely possible, I could have the phillip morris stuff mixed up, sure he mentioned something about making shitloads of money from plebs smoking though. Maybe he just had shares or something.

>>2484
Another picture in profile. His address and home phone number are very easy to find online - he's treasurer of his village's community council.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10249663/Scotland-Yard-examines-new-information-on-death-of-Diana-Princess-of-Wales.html
>reported that new intelligence claimed the Princess was killed by a member of the British military

As discussed in your super soaraway /boo/ back in March.

Why was she be killed?

>>2597
She be killed because Di did die? Ask a silly question.

>>2597
She was a complete mess of a woman. Its all well and good that she rebelled by taking her kids to McDonald's but there is another side to her that was a complete slag who threatened to undo the British monarchy.

>>2599
How could she possibly undo the British monarchy?

They were all killed and replaced with lizards years ago.

>>2599
What rubbish, if the royal family is popular the monarchy is popular, and she was the most popular of the lot.

>>2600
>>2602

If the theories are anything to go by having an Arab directly related to royal blood (perfectly fine however for them to be related to Turks but that's neither here nor there...) was something that was undesirable and as such, was killed. It's interesting because if you read "The Big Breach" by disgruntled former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson he reveals MI6 had a source inside the hotel she was staying in and had proposed to use strobe lights to cause a car crash previously. Google it, it's a good read.

>>2603
They already have Moor blood in them, not to mention Turkish connections but Arabs are bad? I doubt they are that racist considering their smaller lines are marrying Africans, etc.