Friday, February 15, 2008

Diana, Prince Bandar and unreliable sources

Diana photo posted to Flickr by Floyd Nello at

According to a Mr Gordon Logan, The Guardian is run by MI6. (The MI6 Bombings in Saudi Arabia).

This may be a slight exaggeration. But what we do know is that many journalists are indeed working for the security services (Operation Mockingbird).

The Guardian has failed to tell us the whole truth about Lockerbie, the London Bombs and 9 11, although some of its writers have on occasions come up with some good pieces of journalism.

This sounds spooky.

The Guardian story claims that "Mohamed Al Fayed's allegations of high-level conspiracies and cover-ups began to crumble in an extraordinary hour of cross examination yesterday as his former director of security at Harrods admitted he could not substantiate any of them."

This former director of security at Harrods is John Macnamara.

Macnamara is:

1. A former Scotland Yard detective chief superintendent.

2. He was in charge of Fayed's investigation team for five years after Diana's death in August 1997.

3. He has made sworn statements to the police suggesting there was a criminal conspiracy to murder Diana.

Macnamara is now saying that:

1. A police statement he had signed, stating that he had identified Dodi's body on its return to England, was false.

2. He lied when he told a television interviewer 10 days after the crash that there was no evidence that Henri Paul, the couple's chauffeur, had been drinking.

Do the police always tell the truth?

Lord Stevens was the top UK policeman who investigated the Diana death.

In November 2006 Lord Stevens met driver Henri Paul's parents and told them that their son was not drunk, and was found to have had only two alcoholic drinks. (Diana: The unseen evidence which has been mysteriously ignored ...)

Yet just five weeks later Lord Steven's report stated that Henri Paul was twice over the British drink-drive limit and three times over the French one. An expert cited in the report estimated that Paul had sunk the equivalent of ten small glasses of Ricard.

Also on 15 February 2008, The Guardian has a story entitled: BAE: papers reveal Saudi threats

In 2004, the UK's Serious Fraud Office began an investigation into arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

It was The Guardian which reportedly had discovered massive secret payments were going to Saudi princes, to promote arms deals.

Tony Blair eventually halted the fraud investigation, claiming that this was necessary in order to continue cooperation with Saudi Arabia in intelligence matters.

From The Guardian, 15 February 2008:

"Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday."

This looks like a piece of anti-Moslem fearmongering, of the sort that might be enjoyed by MI6?

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to have threatened that he might not cooperate with the British over security matters.

Prince Bandar is alleged to have received £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

Anti-corruption campaigners have now begun a legal action to overturn the decision to halt the fraud case. They want the original investigation restarted.

There are certain questions that The Guardian does not ask:

1. Are the Israelis trying to stop UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

2. Is the US arms industry trying to halt UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

3. If there is a terror attack in London, is it likely that the British Security services or the Saudi security services will know more about it?

4. Was the fraud investigation halted, not because of any fears of terrorism, but because of a wish to continue profitable arms deals?


No comments:

Site Meter