Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

[antiaristo]

.

Stevens Report http://tinyurl.com/yy98xh

I've read the Stevens Report on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
I've spent much time thinking - conscious and unconscious - since the release of the report.
Now is the time to share my early thoughts.

I'm right about the motive, and the coverup in progress right now.
And I'm pretty sure there is someone else who agrees with me.
Oops! I should say "agreed" rather than "agrees". He died (in his ninety-first year) in January this year.


This is the cover page wording:

The Operation Paget inquiry
report into the allegation
of conspiracy to murder
Diana, Princess of Wales
and Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed
Report

Do you see what I see?

Diana, Princess of Wales.

SHE STILL HELD THE TITLE AT HER DEATH.
Just think about that.

At the very least.......

NO WAY COULD CAMILLA BECOME QUEEN.
LACKING SOME "PEARL HARBOR EVENT"


Stevens is completely "in your face" about what he is doing:

Chapter One focuses on the key element of motive. Why would anyone want to kill the Princess of Wales or Dodi Al Fayed?What evidence is there that the couple were
engaged, intending to get engaged and about to make a public announcement? What evidence is there that the Princess of Wales was, or perhaps more importantly believed, she was pregnant? What evidence is there that, if true, this was sufficient cause for anyone to order her murder? [p 11]

........

Report Layout

The Chapters are:

1. Relationship/Engagement/Pregnancy
[Paget Note: The alleged motive for the conspiracy]

The only MOTIVE that Stevens considers is that it is all about Dodi.

What a surprise!

The Windsor/Al Fayed shared agenda, no?

Chapter 1 is ALL about Di 'n Dodi.
Pointless (other than the magician's right hand).

So I went through the report and collected EVERYTHING on the Paul Burrell letter, and will post same in Data Dump.


We begin at Ch 2; "Perceived threats to the Princess of Wales"

Précis of the claims made by Mohamed Al Fayed [page 94]

It is alleged that the Princess of Wales feared for her own safety, believed there were plans to cause her harm and expressed these concerns to other people.


Claim

4. Mr Burrell has recently disclosed a letter written by the Princess of Wales in October 1996 and apparently given to him for
safekeeping. It includes the following
passage:

`I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and
encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. [...] is planning `an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry. ...’

(This appears to be a direct lift from a newspaper article of October 2003.)

Source - Undated ‘Note of Argument’ Supporting Petition For Judicial Review - Minister For Justice, Scotland - In name of Mohamed Al Fayed, Page 7(11) xxii

How preposterous is this?

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the Coroner, has in her possession the letter handwritten by Diana.

The very letter!

Yet Stevens introduces this matter how?
He grants agency to Al Fayed!
He quotes from an Al Fayed document which in turn quotes the Daily Mirror.

And we KNOW that the Daily Mirror deliberately misquoted the original!!!!

We KNOW the passage ended

"in order to leave the path clear for HIM to marry."

WHAT? Is Stevens saying that he has not looked at the letter???

It would seem to be so, for Lord Stevens repeats this casual misquote within the report every time.

And he is pronouncing on motive?

These were the original terms of reference:
[ page 4]

.....
• To identify allegations which would suggest that the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were caused other than as a result of a tragic road traffic accident and assess whether there is any
credible evidence to support such assertions and report the same to the Coroner

Can anybody offer an INNOCENT explanation for why Stevens has failed to carry out this remit?

Or for why he uses a KNOWN misrepresentation?


Now for some meat.
Sorry it's long, but if it's too much for you you are wasting your time on this thread.

1. Concerns for her Personal Safety

Section 1 is in two parts:

Part (a) examines evidence where the Princess of Wales has expressed her concerns specifically relating to a car accident:

i) A note produced by Lord Mishcon, the Princess of Wales’ legal representative, giving details of a meeting with her in 1995 in which she expressed concerns for her safety.

ii) A note left apparently in 1995 or 1996 for her butler Paul Burrell, in which she wrote of her fears of a car accident.

iii) An incident in a car she was driving in 1995 when the Princess of Wales believed her brakes failed as a result of tampering.

Part (b) looks at the general concerns of the Princess of Wales by examining the views of those who knew her.

Page 96

Part (a) - Concerns Relating to a Car Accident

i) The Lord Mishcon note

Lord Mishcon was the personal legal representative of the Princess of Wales. In 1995 he was general advisor to the Princess of Wales. In a meeting with her she outlined fears for her safety, including the possibility of an accident in her car. Following her death in the 1997 traffic collision, Lord Mishcon believed he should bring the content of the note to the attention of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Baron MISHCON of LAMBETH (now deceased)
Legal adviser to the Princess of Wales.

Interviewed by Operation Paget -Statement 222

On 30 October 1995, he attended a meeting with the Princess of Wales and her Private Secretary, Patrick Jephson. Following that meeting, Lord Mishcon prepared a handwritten note (Operation Paget - Exhibit VM/1).

He wrote that the Princess of Wales had told him, that ‘reliable sources’ (whom she did not wish to name) had informed her that by April 1996, whether in an accident in her car such as a pre-prepared brake failure or by other means, efforts would be made if not to get rid of her, then at least to see that she was so injured or damaged as to be declared unbalanced.

The Princess of Wales apparently believed that there was a conspiracy and that both she and Camilla Parker Bowles were to be ‘put aside’.

Lord Mishcon told the Princess of Wales that if she really believed her life or being was under threat, security measures including those relating to her car must be increased. He did not believe that what she was saying was credible and sought a private word with Patrick Jephson, who to Lord Mishcon’s surprise, said that he ‘half believed’ the accuracy of her remarks regarding her safety.

On 18 September 1997, following the Princess of Wales’ death in Paris, Lord Mishcon met with the then Commissioner Sir Paul (now Lord) Condon and then Assistant Commissioner (now Sir) David Veness at New Scotland Yard (NSY), in order to bring the note to their attention. He read out the note (Operation Paget Exhibit VM/1) and emphasised that he was acting in a private capacity rather than on behalf of his firm or the Royal Family.

A note of that meeting was produced(Operation Paget Exhibit VM/2). It details the then Commissioner’s view that the facts so far ascertained showed her death was the result of a tragic set of circumstances. The note concluded that if it ever appeared there were some suspicious factors to the crash in Paris, the Commissioner would make contact at a confidential level with Lord Mishcon or his firm. Lord Mishcon agreed with this course of action.


Page 97

Lord Paul CONDON
Former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.

Interviewed by Operation Paget -Statement 232

Lord Condon recalled the meeting with Lord Mishcon and the note produced by him. He stated that it was agreed by all present that the facts of the incident in which the Princess of Wales died, as known at that time, indicated that it was a tragic accident. It was also agreed that if at any time that situation changed and the circumstances of her death were to be regarded as suspicious, the note and the Princess of Wales’ concerns would be revisited. The Commissioner asked Assistant Commissioner David Veness to monitor the situation on his behalf.

Lord Condon stated that his belief at the time of the meeting was that the car crash in Paris was a tragic accident and since that meeting nothing had been brought to his attention that would alter that view. Whilst Commissioner he would have sought a further meeting with Lord Mishcon had there been cause to do so. There was no cause to do so.

Lord Condon was shown a copy of the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper article dated 20 October 2003, that referred to a note released by Paul Burrell in which the Princess of Wales expressed concerns for her safety. Lord Condon was not aware of that note
before its publication in the newspaper in 2003.

Sir David VENESS
Former Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service.

Interviewed by Operation Paget - Statement 227

Sir David recalled the meeting with Lord Mishcon in September 1997 to discuss the note written two years previously. Lord Mishcon wanted to bring the content of the note to the attention of the Commissioner of Police. It was agreed that if the note became relevant then Lord Mishcon or his firm must be consulted before any disclosure took place.

Sir David stated there were ‘two blocks on using the document’. Firstly, there must be some relevant suspicion concerning the death and secondly, authority must be sought from Lord Mishcon or his firm before disclosure. In his view these conditions never arose.

However, when on 20 October 2003, the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper published the story about the letter/note in the possession of Paul Burrell, Sir David Veness and the Commissioner of the time, Sir John Stevens, reviewed the Lord Mishcon note. As a result of this review and after seeking the view of Lord Mishcon, it was agreed that the Coroner should be informed of the existence and substance of the Lord Mishcon note. Further, enquiries should be made with Patrick Jephson who was also present during the meeting of Lord Mishcon and the Princess of Wales in 1995.



Page 98


Sir David’s first knowledge of the Paul Burrell letter/note was when it was published in the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper on 20 October 2003. He was not aware that Paul Burrell was in possession of the letter/note and not aware of anyone else who knew about his possession of it. If he had known about the contents of the letter/note before then, Sir David stated he may have instructed that Paul Burrell should be seen about it.

Patrick JEPHSON
Private Secretary to the Princess of Wales from 1990 until his resignation in January 1996.

Interviewed by Operation Paget -Statement 23

In relation to the meeting in October 1995 between the Princess of Wales and Lord Mishcon, Patrick Jephson assumed that Lord Mishcon's responsibility was primarily that of a solicitor to his client and that he was therefore obliged to take what the Princess of Wales said at face value, whatever misgivings he might have had privately.

In the circumstances, Patrick Jephson thought it highly unlikely that the concerns of the Princess of Wales were well-founded. He was however anxious not to dismiss these claims outright. She had made similar claims to him in the recent past without any evidence being found. Nevertheless, he knew that an open expression of disbelief might discourage her from sharing similar fears in future. He felt it best to try to elicit the source of her information in order to decide what credence it deserved.

However, in the time available, he was not able to establish the source with any certainty and even wondered if one existed at all. Knowing her as he did, he was fairly confident that her behaviour was not that of someone who actually feared for her life.

[Paget Note: Following the taking of this statement from Patrick Jephson in December 2003 the Coroner, Michael Burgess, was informed of the Lord Mishcon note.]



Page 99

Sorry it's so long, but you can see what's been going on, can't you?

Lord Mishcon, Labour shadow Lord Chancellor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mis ... on_Mishcon

I have some personal knowledge here.

Mishcon de Reya were legal advisors to Anglia Television.

I never knew Lord Mishcon, but I picked up plenty of vibes from people I respected.

Lord Mishcon was greatly admired.
And he never lost his working class roots.

I noted his passing here
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... ht=mishcon


So, given you now know what sort of man he was, can you see what has been going on all these years?

Here's a little more help.

They waited for less than one week once Victor Mishcon died.

He was barely cold. He died on January 28, 2006.

The modified limited hangout will be that al Fayed was more or less correct. This is infinitely preferable to the Windsors than having the true reason come out.

That it was necessary to eliminate her in order to allow the Prince of Wales to re-marry.

Quote:

The Diana Files

New reports suggest crash inquiry may have surprising revelations

By Francis Elliott, Sophie Goodchild and John Lichfield

Published: 05 February 2006

Lord Stevens, the man in charge of the inquiry into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, is infuriatingly discreet about his investigation.

So it came as a considerable surprise when, in a television interview last week, he hinted strongly that it was reaching a sensational conclusion.

He said the case was "far more complex" than originally had been thought and that Mohamed al-Fayed had been "right" to raise the issues he had in relation to the deaths of Diana and his son Dodi.

Until now it seemed almost certain that his inquiry would largely agree with the French version of their fatal crash in a dreary Paris underpass in the early minutes of 31 August 1997.

The official account concludes that the driver, Henri Paul, the head of security at the Fayed-owned Ritz, had been drunk and on anti-depressants at the time, and that the car, a Mercedes, was likely to be the only vehicle involved. This has never been accepted by either the families of Dodi or Paul - or, indeed, the band of conspiracy theorists Diana's death has attracted.

Now it would seem the Harrods boss, Mr Fayed, who has spent many millions of pounds funding his own investigations, stands on threshold of a vindication of sorts.

The Independent on Sunday has established that Lord Stevens' remarks were a deliberate attempt to prepare public opinion for some shocking conclusions. "People are going to be very surprised about what we have to say," said one senior officer closely involved with the inquiry. But what, among the blizzard of outlandish speculation, could Lord Stevens have found that has led him to upset the establishment version?

continues..

If you are serious about knowing the truth, read the full thread

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... a+modified

[antiaristo]

What we have here is another "Dodgy Dossier", another bait and switch.

The Establishment is pulling the same scam that resulted in doubtful information like the "45 minute claim" being endorsed by the Joint Intelligence Commitee (JIC) in September 2002.

{NB For the best description of what happened see my letter to the widow of Dr David Kelly dated 20 August 2003. It is reproduced as the third item on this thread
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 8&start=15 }

See the comments in that Independent article above?
By contrast Stevens has removed his own fingerprints from this "report".

It is writen by "Operation Paget".

It is unsigned by human hand.

Look at this from the introduction (page 1):

This police report documents the findings of the criminal investigation into an allegation made by Mohamed Al Fayed of conspiracy to murder the Princess of Wales and his son Dodi Al Fayed.

The Coroner of the Queen’s Household and H.M. Coroner for Surrey, Michael Burgess, also requested this investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to help him decide whether such matters would fall within the scope of the investigation carried out at the inquests. (Coroner’s remarks at the opening of the inquests, 6 January 2004.)

The opening of the inquests had been delayed until then because of ongoing legal proceedings in France.

A further report (commonly referred to as the ‘Coroner’s report’) will be prepared by police specifically for the inquest process.

Can you see what is happening?
Michael Burgess requested an investigation by the Metropolitan Police.
He dealt with Stevens for no other reason than that he was the Commissioner.

Stevens subsequently left the Metropolitan Police, and joined the House of Lords.

But in law it is STILL the Metropolitan Police who must report to the Coroner. It is STILL the Metropolitan Police who must produce the Coroner's report.

THIS REPORT, BY "OPERATION PAGET" has no legal standing.

ONLY the report by the Metropolitan Police has legal standing.

This is Iraq all over again.

For Alastair Campbell read Lord Stevens.

For John Scarlett read Sir Ian Blair.

For the Joint Intelligence Committee read the Metropolitan Police.

For Parliament deciding on war, read the Coroner's Court deciding on Diana's death.

It's bait and switch.
All that PR is just that - PR.
The Stevens circus is just that - a circus.

And it shows in the analysis.
Another excerpt from the introduction (page 4).

On 6 January 2004, Michael Burgess officially opened the Inquests into the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed. He stated:

‘I am aware that there is speculation that these deaths were not the result of a sad, but relatively straight forward, road traffic accident in Paris. I have asked the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to make inquiries. The results of these inquiries will help me to decide whether such matters will fall within the scope of the investigation carried out at the inquests.’

Terms of Reference for Operation Paget

On 15 January 2004, the Coroner and the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir John Stevens, now Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, agreed the following terms of reference for Operation Paget.

• To liaise with the French authorities in relation to the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed and in doing so identify any investigative opportunities that the Coroner may wish to address with the French authorities. In order to assist the Coroner to achieve the above a comparative standard will be compiled in relation to lines of enquiry, technical analysis, witnesses and any other aspect of the enquiry the Coroner identifies to enable him to achieve his responsibilities to confirm the information provided by the French witnesses

• To assist with lines of enquiry in the United Kingdom as identified by the Coroner

• To identify allegations which would suggest that the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were caused other than as a result of a tragic road traffic accident and assess whether there is any credible evidence to support such assertions and report the same to the Coroner.

See where it says
"To identify allegations...." ?

This is what the report says on page 11:

Report Layout

The Chapters are:

1. Relationship/Engagement/Pregnancy
[Paget Note: The alleged motive for the conspiracy]

What about identifying allegations?
Why narrow it down to what Al Fayed says?
What about the allegation made by the Princess herself, that the motive was

"to clear the path for him to marry?"

Oh! I forgot. Stevens has not read the letter



CONCLUSION

The pressure is now on for the Metropolitan Police to do the same as the JIC in September 2002.

To bless and endorse phoney information, by basing their statutory Coroner's Report on this Operation Paget sham, and endorsing an unsigned report.

We have to stop them.

[antiaristo]

.


I thought I'd do a bit of quantitative analysis on the document.

I ran a search to find every occurence of two distinct words.

The first word was "Stevens".
The second was "Paget".

"Paget" occurs 1502 times in the report.

"Stevens" occurs 25 times. Twenty five!

So I thought I'd analyze those twenty-five.
Here they are.

***************************

p4 (2) On 15 January 2004, the Coroner and the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir John Stevens, now Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, agreed the following terms of reference for Operation Paget.

p16 Source - 25 November 2004, Letter From Mohamed Al Fayed to Sir John Stevens

p19 Source - 25 November 2004, Letter From Mohamed Al Fayed to Sir John Stevens

p89 The second claim was made by Mohamed Al Fayed in a letter to Sir John Stevens dated 25 November 2004. He wrote:

p98 However, when on 20 October 2003, the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper published the story about the letter/note in the possession of Paul Burrell, Sir David Veness and the Commissioner of the time, Sir John Stevens, reviewed the Lord Mishcon note.

p530 Source - 21 February 2006 Letter From Mohamed Al Fayed to Lord Stevens

p606 Source - 21 February 2006 Letter From Mohamed Al Fayed to Lord Stevens

p661 Source - 9 February 2006 - Letter from Mohamed Al Fayed to Lord Stevens

p665 Letter to Lord Stevens from Mohamed Al Fayed, 9 February 2006

p671 Mohamed Al Fayed had stated, both in his statement to Operation Paget and in a letter to Lord Stevens....

p680 Letter to Lord Stevens, 9 February 2006 from Mohamed Al Fayed

p684 In a letter to Lord Stevens dated 9 February 2006, Mohamed Al Fayed stated

p745 the report of an inquiry carried out by Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of MPS, into two murders in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s...

p747 Source - 15 February 2006 Letter from Mohamed Al Fayed to Lord Stevens,

p753 (4) Michael Burgess, asked the then Commissioner, Sir John Stevens to investigate the conspiracy allegations...

[two intervening paragraphs]

The SIS had a meeting with the Operation Paget team, led by the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir John Stevens (now Lord Stevens.) At this meeting in 2004 the SIS offered full co-operation to Lord Stevens and two senior members of the team.

p798 the report of an inquiry carried out by Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of MPS, into two murders in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s

p810 (2) The Stevens Report (Northern Ireland) stated:

Stevens Enquiry 3: Conclusion 9(7)

p813 The Stevens Report (Northern Ireland) commented on collusion in Northern Ireland in general terms...

p821 (2) the report of an inquiry carried out by Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of MPS, into two murders in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s and into allegations of collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

It is important to note in the Stevens (Northern Ireland) Report that the term ‘agents’....

**************************

There are repeated references to letters from Al Fayed (who says the Windsors and Al Fayed are not colluding?).
They were sent to Sir John/Lord Stevens.

That accounts for eleven occurences of "Stevens".


There are repeated references to the inquiry into security services collusion in Northern Ireland. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It's as though Al Fayed is building him up as uncorruptable!

That accounts for seven occurences of "Stevens".


That leaves us with seven further occurences.
They occur in three passages.

1

p4 (2) On 15 January 2004, the Coroner and the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir John Stevens, now Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, agreed the following terms of reference for Operation Paget.

2

p98 However, when on 20 October 2003, the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper published the story about the letter/note in the possession of Paul Burrell, Sir David Veness and the Commissioner of the time, Sir John Stevens, reviewed the Lord Mishcon note.

3

p753 (4) Michael Burgess, asked the then Commissioner, Sir John Stevens to investigate the conspiracy allegations...

[two intervening paragraphs]

The SIS had a meeting with the Operation Paget team, led by the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir John Stevens (now Lord Stevens.) At this meeting in 2004 the SIS offered full co-operation to Lord Stevens and two senior members of the team.

Each of these three is worthy of analysis, and that will be my next post.

For the moment I will observe that these quotes depict Sir John Stevens acting as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Before he departed on 1 February 2005.

In the times before he joined the Lords.

Lord Stevens does not appear to play any active role in this report at all.

While he stood up as front man for all the world's television cameras to see, what the actual text says is that this report is by "Operation Paget", whatever that is.

Can "Operation Paget" be cross examined by the Coroner?

Can "Operation Paget" be held legally liable?

No it cannot.
It is not a person (natural or legal).

The legal person which connects Lord Stevens to Operation Paget is Quest Ltd. It is Quest Ltd that collects the fees.

And the name of Quest Ltd is conspicuous in its complete absence from the report.

So Lord Stevens cannot be held responsible or liable in law.

Lord Stevens is the Executive Chairman of Quest Ltd, a London based Corporate Intelligence, Investigations and Risk Mitigation Company. Among at least four remunerated company directorships held by him are non-executive directorships of the financial services company Invicta Capital and of Mercer Street Consulting. Stevens also writes for the News of the World newspaper. On 28 November 2005 he was appointed Chancellor of Northumbria University.

He headed a Metropolitan Police inquiry, Operation Paget, into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, which reported its findings on 14 December 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Steve ... helpington


But the Metropolitan Police is indeed such a "person". Which is why the Metropolitan Police will produce the Coroner's report.

"Operation Paget" gains personhood, legal standing, at that point that Sir Ian Blair adopts the report as the basis of the Coroner's report.

That's where the bait gets switched.

And look at how wiki is part of it.

What wiki says is a barefaced lie.
The Operation Paget report is nowhere linked to the Metropolitan Police.

Indeed the Metropolitan Police surely insisted on this on the first page:

A further report (commonly referred to as the ‘Coroner’s report’) will be prepared by
police specifically for the inquest process.

Wiki, this is NOT a "Metrpolitan Police Inquiry"!

Another Iraq analogy: the legal advice of the atorney general.

The AG Lord Goldsmith did NOT write that Iraq was legal. The words read out in parliament were written by Lord Falconer. That's what he told Butler. Goldsmith had no alternative but to accept the statement issued in his name when he stood up in the Lords.

No I won't say which law was used to compell Goldsmith. I'd hope you all know it by heart.

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is in the same position.

[antiaristo]

However, when on 20 October 2003, the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper published the story about the letter/note in the possession of Paul Burrell, Sir David Veness and the Commissioner of the time, Sir John Stevens, reviewed the Lord Mishcon note. As a result of this review and after seeking the view of Lord Mishcon, it was agreed that the Coroner should be informed of the existence and substance of the Lord Mishcon note. Further, enquiries should be made with Patrick Jephson who was also present during the meeting of Lord Mishcon and the Princess of Wales in 1995.
Page 98

This is HUGELY revealling

Look at what happened when Paul Burrell hit back and put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Sir David Veness and his boss got together to decide "What the fuck are we going to do about Mishcon?"

In other words, in their own minds, they linked the Burrell revelations with Mishcon.

So they went to see the eighty-seven year old former Shadow Lord Chancellor.

And as a result they informed the Coroner

"..of the existence and substance of the Lord Mishcon note."

(ie six years late they tried to cover their arse without leting the Coroner see it for himself)


In other words, the collective judgement was that the Lord Mishcon note was relevant and significant to the inquest - in the light of the Burrell revelations.

Now the senior party to this decision was, of course, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Sir John Stevens.

But of course Sir John Stevens has given no evidence to this inquiry, has he?

He became Lord Stevens of Lilliput and became the front man for "Operation Paget".

And "Operation Paget" is telling us that the Lord Mishcon note is NOT RELEVANT TO THIS INQUEST.

The VERY REVERSE of the judgement made by Sir John Stevens. When Lord Mishcon was still alive.


What else has changed Stevens, you slimy sack of shit?

You didn't wait until his body was cold to start your lucrative campaign of lies, did you?

There is a special place in hell for people like you that sell their public trust.

[antiaristo]

.


The other two are best looked at together:

p4 (2) On 15 January 2004, the Coroner and the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir John Stevens, now Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, agreed the following terms of reference for Operation Paget.


p753 (4) Michael Burgess, asked the then Commissioner, Sir John Stevens to investigate the conspiracy allegations surrounding the deaths in order to ‘inform the inquest process’.

(two intervening paragraphs)

The SIS had a meeting with the Operation Paget team, led by the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir John Stevens (now Lord Stevens.) At this meeting in 2004 the SIS offered full co-operation to Lord Stevens and two senior members of the team.

What's going on here is the fusion of two identities, one of which has legal power to act for the Metropolitan Police, and one which does not.

The fusing of Lord Stevens, who has no such power, with Sir John Stevens, past Metropolitan Police Commissioner and THEN CUSTODIAN OF THE CORONER'S REPORT.

They even go so far as to tell us all an outright lie, viz:

At this meeting in 2004 the SIS offered full co-operation to Lord Stevens and two senior members of the team.

But wiki tells us:

After his retirement as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, on 6 April 2005 he was created a life peer as Baron Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, of Kirkwhelpington in the County of Northumberland.

What are they trying to achieve, that they are prepared to lie in print?

It is a variation of Hugh's theme.
They are hi-jacking a key concept, rather than a word.

They are trying to con the general public into believing that Lord Stevens is TODAY the rightful legal custodian of the Coroner's report.

He is not.

The legal custodian TODAY is Sir Ian Blair.
The Met Commissioner of TODAY.


I intend to write to Sir Ian Blair on monday.
I'd appreciate as much constructive feedback as possible on this.

For those of you who understand, NOW is the time for action.


Postscript

The reason I can see this is that it mirrors the fraud carried out against me and 200 others at Anglia Television.

We were conned into believing that Malcolm Wall was a lawful Director of the company at the time he fired everybody and locked us out.

But he didn't get appointed until two months later.

And that makes all the difference in the world...

[slimmouse]

For those of you who understand, NOW is the time for action.

In the words of one of my favourite Authors, ' Are there any REAL journalists out there'

Or perhaps that is framing the question in the wrong way.

After all the editors decision is final. Journalist work for editors.

The best way to describe it would be a pyramid system. And the people at the head of the pyramid, through an orchestrated campaign of Deceit (for the masses ) Bribery for the Soulless, and threats of death for the courageous ( or even more worrying for the courageous for their kin), have covered this one up, just like they cover them all up.

See 9/11.

See the same the lying fucks who edited the bible.

What you would find is truly amazing.

The same team who did all of the above , are behind the murder of Diana.

Say a prayer for them all.

[antiaristo]

.
Sir Ian Blair
Metropolitan Police Commissioner
New Scotland Yard

Operation Paget/Stevens Report

Dear Sir,

I write in my capacity as freeborn Englishman, and claim the laws of England as my birthright. My interest in this matter lies in the faithful upholding of those laws.

The "Operation Paget" inquiry does not fullfil the requirements of the Coroner's report requested by Michael Burgess of the Metropolitan Police. Most specifically the third of the three agreed terms of reference remains unfulfilled.

In January 2004 the then Coroner and the then Commissioner agreed

"• To identify allegations which would suggest that the deaths of the Princess of
Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were caused other than as a result of a tragic road
traffic accident and assess whether there is any credible evidence to support
such assertions and report the same to the Coroner "

This is at variance from the scope of the Paget/Stevens report, which begins

"This police report documents the findings of the criminal investigation into an
allegation made by Mohamed Al Fayed of conspiracy to murder the Princess of Wales
and his son Dodi Al Fayed. "

In other words only the Al Fayed allegation is covered.
Just the one. No other allegations at all.
Not even that made by the Princess of Wales herself.

"..in order to clear the path for him to marry."

My concern is not only that the terms of reference are not met. My greater concern is that this itself contradicts the decision made by Sir John Stevens himself when Commissioner in October 2003.

The Stevens/Paget report reveals the existence of two documents (VM/1 and VM/2) written by or about Victor Mishcon, the Baron Mishcon. (You will know that Lord Mishcon was the personal legal advisor and general advisor to the Princess of Wales for many years up to her death.) The first of these documents was a personal note handwritten by Lord Mishcon in October 1995. The second was the minute of a meeting between Lord Mishcon and the then Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, held within days of the death of the Princess of Wales in 1997.

Whatever this was all about, it had nothing to do with the Al Fayed family because there was no relationship in 1995. Whatever this was all about, it has NOT been explored by Paget/Stevens.

Further evidence that a real connection exists is found on page 98 of the Paget/Stevens report recounting the Scotland Yard reaction to the revelations by Paul Burrell in October 2003:

"However, when on 20 October 2003, the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper published the
story about the letter/note in the possession of Paul Burrell, Sir David Veness and the
Commissioner of the time, Sir John Stevens, reviewed the Lord Mishcon note. As a
result of this review and after seeking the view of Lord Mishcon, it was agreed that
the Coroner should be informed of the existence and substance of the Lord Mishcon
note."

When the Commissioner and his Assistant read the Burrell relevations, their minds turned instinctively to the Mishcon note. Sir John Stevens and Sir David Veness could themselves see a connection.

They consulted with Lord Mishcon and all agreed that the Coroner must be involved.
In other words the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and a former Shadow Lord Chancellor all agreed that the Mishcon note was very relevant to the inquest.

Logically speaking, if the Mishcon note was relevant, then by its connection the Burrell letter itself must be relevant. But the Burrell note, too, has been left out of the pages of the Paget/Stevens report. Really, I can think of no other explanation for why the Paget/Stevens report invariably misquotes by using the Daily Mirror source, rather than the actual letter itself, currently in the hands of the Coroner.

It seems to me that at least one entire line of enquiry has been excluded by investigating only the Al Fayed allegation. This line of inquiry is encompassed by the Mishcon note of October 1995, the Diana letter of October 1996 and the Mishcon/Scotland Yard minute of September 1997. I am perplexed by this, because Lord Stevens decided the exact opposite, when he was Sir John Stevens in October 2003. At that time he was the senior party to the decision to involve the Coroner in this very line of inquiry. A decision he took as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

The Paget/Stevens report is a privatisation beachhead. It reaches to the heart of the trust relationship between the police and the public.From a policing perspective it is a shoddy piece of work and falls well short of meeting the Coroner's terms of reference. But no damage is done, because the Paget/Stevens report has no standing in the eyes of the law.

But the Coroner's report, to be supplied by your own Metropolitan Police, must meet a higher standard. It must answer the terms of reference agreed with the Coroner. It must

"identify allegations which would suggest that the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were caused other than as a result of a tragic road traffic accident.."

At the very least we need to know what it was that Victor Mishcon wrote by hand in October 1995. We need to know what he thought worth bringing to the attention of both Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in September 1997, within days of her death,and what was said in reply. And we need to know the full contents of what Diana herself wrote and gave to Paul Burrell in October 1996.

After all your predecessor thought the same - when he was wearing those shoes.

Yours faithfully,
John Cleary
Freeborn Englishman and Citizen of Ireland


************************************

Constructive feedback appreciated

[isachar]

anti,

I have no doubt of your conclusion as to the validity and narrowly limited scope of the inquiry as your analysis of it reveals.

You've laid out the indictment and particulars quite well in these are earlier posts.

What I can add is that the methods and techniques you observe in this regard are classic examples of how such troubling matters are made to go away in the old and new empires.

And of course, empires can do what the want. Such things as reality, truth and facts become malleable and relative on their way to being redefined. These things are what the empire says they are and - usually for the majority - are what they get their parrots and apes in the media and elsehwere to constantly repeat.

[antiaristo]

isachar,
Thanks

The thing is, this is the first secret empire.

I've got an old copy of Pauwels and bergier. On the back page appears this, as the second of four questions.

¿Sera la sociedad secreta el sistema de gobierno del futuro?

So I attack the secrecy


For completeness, this is what I sent today.

*************************

C/Eusebio Navarro, 12
35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Spain
email: john.cleary@tele2.es
2 January 2007
Sir Ian Blair
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police
New Scotland Yard
(Correos certificado urgente No 28185 5ES)
also sent by email

Inquest into the Death of the Princess of Wales

Dear Sir,

I write in my capacity as freeborn Englishman, and claim the laws of England as my birthright. My interest in this matter lies in the faithful upholding of those laws.

The "Operation Paget" enquiry falls well short of the Coroner's report requested by Michael Burgess of the Metropolitan Police. Most specifically the third of the three agreed terms of reference remains unfulfilled.

In January 2004 the then Coroner and the then Commissioner agreed:

"• To identify allegations which would suggest that the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were caused other than as a result of a tragic road traffic accident and assess whether there is any credible evidence to support such assertions and report the same to the Coroner "

This is at variance from the scope of the Paget/Stevens report, which begins:

"This police report documents the findings of the criminal investigation into an allegation made by Mohamed Al Fayed of conspiracy to murder the Princess of Wales and his son Dodi Al Fayed. "

In other words only the Al Fayed allegation is covered.
Just the one. No other allegations at all.
Not even that made by the Princess of Wales herself.


"..in order to clear the path for him to marry."


My concern is not only that the terms of reference are not met. My greater concern is that this itself contradicts the decision made by Sir John Stevens himself when Commissioner in October 2003.

The Stevens/Paget report reveals the existence of two documents (VM/1 and VM/2) written by or about Victor Mishcon, the Baron Mishcon. (You will know that Lord Mishcon was the personal legal advisor and general advisor to the Princess of Wales for many years up to her death.) The first of these documents was a personal note handwritten by Lord Mishcon in October 1995. The second was the minute of a meeting between Lord Mishcon and the then Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, held within days of the death of the Princess of Wales in 1997.

Whatever this was all about, it had nothing to do with the Al Fayed family because there was no relationship in 1995. Whatever this was all about, it has NOT been explored by Paget/Stevens.

Further evidence that a real connection exists is found in the Paget/Stevens account (page 98 ) of the Scotland Yard reaction to the revelations by Paul Burrell in October 2003:

"However, when on 20 October 2003, the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper published the story about the letter/note in the possession of Paul Burrell, Sir David Veness and the Commissioner of the time, Sir John Stevens, reviewed the Lord Mishcon note. As a result of this review and after seeking the view of Lord Mishcon, it was agreed that the Coroner should be informed of the existence and substance of the Lord Mishcon note."



/cont. When the Commissioner
/cont. the Lord Mishcon note"

When the Commissioner and his Assistant read the Burrell relevations, their minds turned instinctively to the Mishcon note. Sir John Stevens and Sir David Veness could themselves see a connection.

They consulted with Lord Mishcon and all agreed that the Coroner must be involved.

In other words the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and a former Shadow Lord Chancellor all agreed that the Mishcon note was very relevant to the inquest.

Logically speaking, if the Mishcon note was relevant, then by its connection the Burrell letter itself must be relevant. But the Burrell note, too, has been left out of the pages of the Paget/Stevens report. Really, I can think of no other explanation for why the Paget/Stevens report invariably misquotes her words by using the Daily Mirror source, rather than the actual letter itself, currently in the hands of the Coroner.

It seems to me that at least one entire line of enquiry has been excluded by investigating only the Al Fayed allegation. This line of enquiry is encompassed by the Mishcon note of October 1995, the Diana letter of October 1996 and the Mishcon/Scotland Yard minute of September 1997. I am perplexed by this, because Lord Stevens decided the exact opposite, when he was Sir John Stevens in October 2003. At that time he was the senior party to the decision to involve the Coroner in this very line of enquiry. A decision he took as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

The Paget/Stevens report is a privatisation beachhead. It reaches to the heart of the trust between the police and the public. From a policing perspective it is a shoddy piece of work, reminiscent of the Jill Dando investigation in many respects, and falls well short of meeting the Coroner's terms of reference. Fortunately no damage is done, because the Paget/Stevens report has no standing in the eyes of the law.

But the Coroner's report, to be supplied by your own Metropolitan Police, must meet a higher standard. It must answer the terms of reference agreed with the Coroner. It must

"identify allegations which would suggest that the deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed were caused other than as a result of a tragic road traffic accident.."

At the very least we need to know what it was that Victor Mishcon wrote by hand in October 1995. We need to know what he thought worth bringing to the attention of both Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in September 1997, within days of her death, and what was said in reply. We need to know why Sir Ian Blair made contact with Lord Mishcon in October 2003 in the wake of Burrell. And we need to know the full contents of what Diana herself wrote and gave to Paul Burrell in October 1996.

After all, your predecessor thought exactly that - when he was wearing those shoes.
RSVP
Yours faithfully,





John Cleary BSc MA MBA

cc Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (Correos cetrificado 28184 1ES)
Len Duvall, Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (Correos certificado 28183 8ES)

[antiaristo]

.


Jill Dando was a very popular young television presenter in the UK. Out of the blue, on 26 April 1999, she was gunned down in the street. I can personally attest that the nation went into mourning and the murder of Jill Dando led the newspapers for days. In an interesting synchronicity (if not more) I arrived back in London a few days later, 1 May 1999, for the first time in four and a half years.

The investigation was a travesty.
In the end an innocent man, Barry George, was put in prison for that murder. But he is a demonstrable patsy. Mentally challenged, he was well and truly "fitted up" by the Metropolitan Police.
And everybody knows it. But he languishes still.

The actual perpetrator behind the hit-man was another prominent member of the Windsor Gang. Lord Jeffrey Archer.

Yet another crooked Legislator in the House of Lords.
Who was also responsible for everything that happened at Anglia Television, where his wife was a prominent director.

Archer was actually going after Angie Peppiat, as he went after Monica Coghlan. But the hit man fucked up and whacked the wrong blonde.

And all this happened under the leadership of Sir Paul Condon (now Lord Condon) and our old friend Sir John Stevens (now Lord Stevens).

There's a thread on it here at RI.
It involves a fight between myself and another disinformationalist called emad. He's trying to cover for the Queen's henchman.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... php?t=1993

[antiaristo]

Queen represented at Diana hearings
Press Association
Thursday January 4, 2007 6:53 PM


The Queen is to be represented at the preliminary hearings of the inquest into Diana, Princess of Wales' death, it has been confirmed.

Buckingham Palace has asked the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, to see to the matter.

He has appointed Sir John Nutting QC to attend Baroness Butler-Sloss' procedural hearings at the High Court on Monday and Tuesday.

Lady Butler-Sloss is to decide at this stage whether there will be a jury for the inquest.

Diana was still part of the Royal Family when she died, meaning any jury would have to be made up of members of the Royal Household.

Lady Butler-Sloss will also assess whether separate or joint inquests will be held for the Princess and lover Dodi Fayed, who was also killed in the Paris car crash nearly ten years ago.

The hearings are resuming following the publication of Lord Stevens's Metropolitan Police inquiry last month.

He dismissed the many conspiracy theories surrounding the incident in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel on August 31, 1997, and concluded the crash was nothing but a tragic accident.

The Attorney General's Office said the Queen would not be represented at the full inquest, which looks set to take place later this year.

A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office said her interests were those in her role as monarch, rather than as a private individual.

There is a lot of meat here.

1 Sir John Nutting QC is the husband of Dianne Nutting. Diane Nutting was a director of Anglia Television at the time of the Archer inspired fraud. I still have the reply from her servant when I wrote to complain.

2 I've already pointed out how Stevens report is not related to the Metropolitan Police.

3 The Coroner is already acting in the name of Regina. The Sovereign cannot be a party to a judgement made in her name.

The Attorney General's Office said the Queen would not be represented at the full inquest, which looks set to take place later this year.

This has the hallmark of a panic measure, I think. (any other views?)

Because this was anounced recently

Princes plan concert as 'best birthday present ever' for Diana

By Richard Alleyne
Last Updated: 2:35am GMT 13/12/2006

Princes William and Harry yesterday unveiled plans for a Live Aid-style charity concert followed by a memorial service to mark the 10th anniversary of the death of their mother Diana, Princess of Wales.

Princes Harry and William: 'It's a chance to carry on what she left behind'

The "Concert for Diana", featuring Sir Elton John and Duran Duran, will be only the second show to be held at the new Wembley Stadium and is expected to earn nearly £3 million in ticket sales alone.

Up to 90,000 people, most paying £45 a seat, will attend the event on July 1 - what would have been the princess's 46th birthday.

Her sons said they hoped that the show, which is expected to be shown live on television across the world, would be the best "present" their mother ever had.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... iana13.xml

Added on edit

Quote shortened.

Also this, heheheh

ROYAL FLIGHT
EXCLUSIVE Charles and Camilla leave country for Diana concert
By Emily Nash

CHARLES and Camilla will leave Britain this summer to avoid the Princess Diana memorial concert organised by her sons.

It is believed they are planning a royal tour to prevent speculation about whether they will attend the sell-out show at Wembley Stadium.

Princes William, 24, and Harry, 22, are said to have their father's full backing for the star-studded gig on July 1, the day Diana would have been 46.

But a royal insider said: "Charles doesn't want to overshadow the boys' big day. There was a fear from some of his aides of too much attention focused on his attendance at the concert.

"It was thought best that he and Camilla find themselves abroad at the time of the concert. Plans for a foreign tour are already well under way."

http://tinyurl.com/yj2u7p

Yup. They started on Tuesday



Also this, with some flesh in my next post

Timeline

30 October 1995 - the Lord Mishcon note
20 November 1995 - the Panorama interview
20 December 1995 - Queen Elizabeth orders divorce
28 August 1996 - decree nisi granted (negotiated by Lord Mishcon)
October 1996 - Diana gives the letter to Paul Burrell
31 August 1997 - Diana dies
18 September 1997 Lord Mishcon received by the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner. Minuted.


I can see very well why Queen Elizabeth is using her personal powers to keep these documents under lock and key.

[antiaristo]

A timeline is interesting here.
It may help to explain the actions of Queen Elizabeth.

************************

First, the Lord Mishcon note, on 30 October 1995

i) The Lord Mishcon note

Lord Mishcon was the personal legal representative of the Princess of Wales. In 1995 he was general advisor to the Princess of Wales. In a meeting with her she outlined
fears for her safety, including the possibility of an accident in her car. Following her death in the 1997 traffic collision, Lord Mishcon believed he should bring the content of the note to the attention of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Baron MISHCON of LAMBETH (now deceased)
Legal adviser to the Princess of Wales.

Interviewed by Operation Paget -Statement 222

On 30 October 1995, he attended a meeting with the Princess of Wales and her Private Secretary, Patrick Jephson. Following that meeting, Lord Mishcon prepared a handwritten note (Operation Paget - Exhibit VM/1).

Paget/Stevens page 97

Next, on 20 November 1995 came the Panorama interview with Martin Bashir.

Two excerpts:

You know, the campaign at that point was being successful, but it did surprise the people who were causing the grief - it did surprise them when I took myself out of the game.
They hadn't expected that. And I'm a great believer that you should always confuse the enemy.

BASHIR: Who was the enemy?

DIANA: Well, the enemy was my husband's department, because I always got more publicity, my work was more, was discussed much more than him.
And, you know, from that point of view I understand it. But I was doing good things, and I wanted to good things. I was never going to hurt anyone, I was never going to let anyone down.

BASHIR: But you really believe that it was out of jealousy that they wanted to undermine you?

DIANA: I think it was out of fear, because here was a strong woman doing her bit, and where was she getting her strength from to continue?

snip-----

BASHIR: There's a lot of discussion at the moment about how matters between yourself and the Prince of Wales will be resolved. There's even the suggestion of a divorce between you. What are your thoughts about that?

DIANA: I don't want a divorce, but obviously we need clarity on a situation that has been of enormous discussion over the last three years in particular.
So all I say to that is that I await my husband's decision of which way we are all going to go.

BASHIR: If he wished a divorce to go through, would you accept that?

DIANA: I would obviously discuss it with him, but up to date neither of us has discussed this subject, though the rest of the world seems to have.
BASHIR: Would it be your wish to divorce?
DIANA: No, it's not my wish.

Whole interview here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/diana/panorama.html


Then the Queen got involved on 20 December 1995

A month later, the Queen wrote to her son Charles, Prince of Wales, and to Princess Diana asking them to seek an early divorce.
Their marriage ended with the issue of a decree nisi on 28 August 1996.
As part of the divorce settlement Diana was stripped of her royal title - Her Royal Highness - and instead became known as Diana, Princess of Wales.
It is understood she was awarded a £17m lump sum and £350,000 a year to run her private office. Diana and Charles agreed to share custody of their sons.

http://tinyurl.com/yf5ef2


Then Diana gave the handwritten note to Paul Burrell in October 1996*

“This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous – my husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry.”

In September 1997 The Queen told Paul Burrell 'There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge'



Next Lord Mishcon brought the note to the Metropolitan Police On 18 September 1997

On 18 September 1997, following the Princess of Wales’ death in Paris, Lord Mishcon met with the then Commissioner Sir Paul (now Lord) Condon and then Assistant Commissioner (now Sir) David Veness at New Scotland Yard (NSY), in order to bring the note to their attention. He read out the note (Operation Paget Exhibit VM/1) and emphasised that he was acting in a private capacity rather than on behalf of his firm or the Royal Family.

A note of that meeting was produced (Operation Paget Exhibit VM/2). It details the then Commissioner’s view that the facts so far ascertained showed her death was the result of a tragic set of circumstances. The note concluded that if it ever appeared there were some suspicious factors to the crash in Paris, the Commissioner would make contact at a confidential level with Lord Mishcon or his firm. Lord Mishcon agreed with this course of action.

Paget/Stevens page 97


*Stevens tries clumsily to undermine Burrell and the letter. So I've posted the original Daily Mirror piece of 20 October 2003 in Data Dump. You can compare it directly to what Stevens says.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 8025#98025

Post 13

[antiaristo]

.

Stevens, you stand condemned.

Let the Times answer my question:

Obituaries


The Times January 30, 2006

Lord Mishcon
August 14, 1915 - January 27, 2006

Solicitor who gave legal advice to Diana, Princess of Wales, having begun his practice in a rented room in Brixton.

The Times January 28, 2006

Diana death inquiry fails to answer doubts over how she died
By Andrew Pierce

THE investigation into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has been much more complicated than any of those involved had anticipated, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has disclosed.

More than two years after Operation Paget was set up, Lord Stevens said that he was still not in a position to rule out some of the conspiracy theories that surround the death of the Princess.

Lord Stevens said that Mohamed Al Fayed — who claims that the Princess and his son, Dodi, were killed by British security services — had been right to raise some of his concerns about the car crash in a Paris underpass on August 31, 1997.

snip-----
Lord Stevens said in an interview on The Sunday Programme for GMTV.

He must have given the interview to GMTV on Friday 27 January. The day Lord Mishcon died.

Here's the sequence of events.

27 Jan Lord Mishcon dies
27 Stevens gives interview to GMTV
28 Murdoch's Times pushes the narrative
29 GMTV(ITV) broadcasts interview
30 Mishcon obituary published.


Were they really so frightened of this old man?

Read the man's obituary

Obituary
Lord Mishcon


Veteran London solicitor who believed the law should give justice to everyman

James Morton
Monday January 30, 2006
The Guardian

Perhaps one reason for the success of the solicitor Lord Mishcon, who has died aged 90, was his sense that the law should be there for everybody. He had an old-fashioned sense of the responsibilities of being a lawyer in the days before law practices became commercial exercises. Masterful with private clients, he was a man who would extricate them from whatever problem they had dug for themselves. He did not preach to them and he had an ability to set an agenda.

A Labour member for Lambeth of the Greater London council (GLC) from 1964 to 1967 - and chairman of its general purposes committee - Victor Mishcon was created a life peer in 1978 during James Callaghan's administration. He was effectively shadow chancellor (1983-92) when he was opposition spokesman on legal affairs in the Lords.
Later, unlike many lawyer MPs and peers, he was not in fear of New Labour's Lord Irvine. His position served the Law Society well, and Mishcon acted as an intermediary during the 1999 debates on the access to justice bill, which was seen as severely restricting the availability of legal aid, of which Mishcon was a great supporter. As a member of the Lords, he chose his subjects carefully, speaking only on topics he knew and understood. As a result, everyone listened. He would have been pleased to be regarded as old Labour.

Mishcon was the son of Arnold Mishcon, a rabbi in Brixton, and his wife Queenie, a schoolteacher. He was educated at the City of London school and, once he had qualified as a solicitor, opened his own firm in 1937, at the age of 22. This was an era of some anti-semitism in the legal profession and there was no other way for a bright Jewish boy to progress. In 1988, the firm merged and he became the senior partner of Mishcon de Reya, retiring in 1992 to become a consultant.

The best known of Mishcon's clients - and certainly the saddest - was Ruth Ellis, in 1955 the last woman to be hanged in Britain. On the day before her execution, she told Mishcon that she had been given the gun with which she killed David Blakely, by an older lover, Desmond Cussen, who had driven her to Hampstead, where she had shot the racing driver. She had said nothing against Cussen at her trial because, she told Mishcon, "it seemed traitorous". Mishcon telephoned this to the Home Office and the senior civil servant Sir Frank Newsam was tannoyed at Ascot races. But the police failed to find Cussen that afternoon to obtain corroboration and no reprieve was granted. Six months later, the home secretary asked the director of public prosecutions to consider the prosecution of Cussen as an accessory but no proceedings were brought.

Other notable clients with whom Mishcon dealt personally included Lord Palumbo and Jeffrey Archer, for whom he acted in the celebrated action in which the thriller writer received £500,000 damages over allegations that he had been with a prostitute. Mishcon was also present in court during the criminal trial in 2001, at the end of which Archer was sentenced to four years' jail as a result of that previous trial. He advised Robert Maxwell's sons during the prosecution brought against them (and in which they were acquitted), but had become a consultant by the time his firm was instructed by Princess Diana to handle her divorce.

From 1945 to 1949, Mishcon was a member of Lambeth council. A member of the London county council for Brixton from 1946 to 1965, he variously chaired five LCC committees before its replacement by the GLC. He failed to win a parliamentary seat for Labour on four occasions (Leeds North-West, Bath, and Gravesend twice) between 1950 and 1959, most notably when he was at odds with his party during the second campaign for the Gravesend seat.

He was, at the time, involved with the financier Maxwell Joseph, acting for him in the reverse takeover of Norfolk Hotels. This was capitalism at its most unacceptable for many in the Labour party at the time. Mishcon, however, maintained that it was "a perfectly honourable commercial transaction".

Party politics aside, he was a member of the Wolfenden committee on homosexual offences and prostitution (1954-57), a member of the National Theatre board (1965-67) and the South Bank theatre board (1977-82), as well as the London Orchestra board in 1966. He was also a member of the government committee of inquiry into London Transport (1953-54) and the executive committee of the London Tourist Board (1965-67).

During the 1980s, he played a pivotal role as a secret intermediary between Israel and Jordan, when his country house was used on several occasions for private meetings between King Hussein (whom he had come to know when his daughter became friends at school with Princess Basma) and Shimon Peres, then the Israeli foreign minister. At the time, he also owned a house in Israel. His modesty showed when he declined an invitation to attend the ceremonies marking the 1994 signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty.

A vice-president, and past president of the Association of Jewish Youth, he was vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (1967-73). From 1976 to 1977, he was vice chairman of the Council of Christians and Jews, a position he held for three years. He was also president of the British council of Jerusalem's Shaare Zedek hospital. Among many charitable acts, he gave a library to University College London, in the name of the late Manfred Altman, the academic administrator. He had taken over from Altman as chairman of the Institute of Jewish Studies.

An immensely cerebral man, who trained himself to need only six hours of sleep - believing that a woman should have seven and only a fool eight - Mishcon was not a man given to small talk, nor one who would tolerate prattle for the sake of it. In the 1998 Lords debate on the family law bill, he advocated that a man should not be allowed to abandon his wife in favour of a "little floosie". He suggested that a way could be found to encourage the husband to return to his wife via an intelligent judge or registrar.

He received many honours, including the stars of Ethiopia (1954) and Jordan (1995). He was a commander of the Royal Swedish Order of the North Star. In 1991 he received an honorary doctorate from Birmingham University. In 1992 he became one of the first - and still relatively few - solicitors to be appointed an honorary QC.

His first wife died in 1943; his second marriage ended in divorce in 1959; the third ended in 1972. He married his fourth wife in 1976; that was dissolved in 2001. He is survived by two sons, one of whom became a solicitor, and a daughter, who became a barrister. · Victor Mishcon, Baron Mishcon of Lambeth, solicitor, born August 14 1915; died January 28 2006.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/st ... 08,00.html

Strange.
According to the Guardian he died on January 28.

And Lord Stevens gave his performance on January 27?

Maybe the Guardian is wrong.
But maybe it's right

[antiaristo]

.
I'm posting these because they're in the Daily Telegraph, long time host to the intelligence services. Not so long ago Dominic Lawson, editor of the Sunday Telegraph, stood down after being outed as MI6.

It's Establishment through and through.

Telegraph Comment

The Middleton way
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 06/01/2007

Kate Middleton, Prince William's girlfriend, is becoming a great favourite with the media. This is hardly surprising. She is an attractive young woman who dresses well and photographs even better: and she might be the next Queen of England.

The Daily Telegraph has published pictures of Miss Middleton and, reflecting the great public interest in her, has also run articles about her: one such appears today. So long as she remains in the public eye, we shall continue in the same, appropriate way to reflect this interest. Given what an appealing personality she is, it is good for the Royal Family that this should be so.

However, it is clear that, in some parts of the media, there has been a change in recent days in the way Miss Middleton is regarded. She has become, especially to paparazzi photographers, a valuable commodity.

http://tinyurl.com/yj9h33

Kate hounded like Diana, say lawyers

By Andrew Pierce
Last Updated: 1:58am GMT 06/01/2007

Lawyers for Kate Middleton, the girlfriend of Prince William, have raised with Scotland Yard their fears for her safety after a series of incidents with the paparazzi.

Up to 10 photographers, in cars and on motorcycles, have been camped outside her west London home since a wave of media speculation of an imminent engagement.

They walk in front of her taking pictures and follow as she drives to work at Jigsaw.

By the time she arrives another group takes over. They follow her when she leaves the office in her lunch break and after work.

Already comparisons are being made between the photogenic Miss Middleton, who is 25 on Tuesday, and the young Lady Diana Spencer who was followed daily by cameramen from the moment her courtship with the Prince of Wales became public.

The irony is not lost on the Royal Family that next week Lady Butler-Sloss will hold an interim hearing for the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales whose car was being chased by paparazzi. Prince Harry, to this day, blames the photographers for his mother's death.

http://tinyurl.com/yzrxzk

Strange.
Not so long ago they were telling us that Camilla would "inevitably" become queen.

Now the Telegraph says someone else "might be the next "Queen of England" (sic).

And that there has been a change in the way Miss Middleton is regarded "in recent days".

That's the thing about the Windsors.

They are good at winning when there is no opposition, when everyone bows and scrapes before them.

But not otherwise.
Not now that there are no longer "powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge".

Hence "Plan B".
Queen Kate.

[Telexx]

Thanks for this post. I have two points, and one question:

1- Unless she's a MC victim, she'll have a decision to make in terms of whether she'll marry William.

2- It's likely that William will take a wife before or after becoming king, whether it is Catherine "Kate" Middleton or not.

Therefore, my question is, in what way do your points here represent a "Plan B"?

Thanks,

Telexx

PS: I am not questioning the overall thrust of your arguments, I am sympathetic to your claims although this could be because I am an ardent repulican (in the true sense of the word, and not the repugnant American version).