1. Home
  2. Diana's tragic death spawned web of conspiracy theories

Diana's tragic death spawned web of conspiracy theories

Agencies
August 31, 2017

London, Aug 31: The fascination with Princess Diana's life extends to her death. Not since the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy has a tragic demise been so minutely analyzed, or spawned so many lurid theories.

A French investigation, a years-long British police inquiry and a coroner's inquest all concluded there was no foul play in the princess' fatal car crash — but that has not silenced speculation that Diana was the victim of an Establishment murder plot.

THE CAR CRASH

The 36-year-old princess left the Ritz Hotel in Paris just after midnight on Aug. 31, 1997, with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and her bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones. Her Mercedes, pursued by paparazzi, crashed into a concrete pillar in the Alma Tunnel at more than 60 mph (100 kph). The princess, Fayed and driver Henri Paul were all killed. Rees-Jones was injured but survived.

THE DIANA CONSPIRACIES

Global shock soon gave way to speculation — about the role of the pursuing paparazzi and, for some, about whether darker forces were at work. Diana was the world's most famous woman at the time, and her public discussion of her unhappy marriage had been a major embarrassment to Britain's royal family since she and Prince Charles had separated in 1992.

Diana had written in a 1995 letter of fears that Charles was "planning an `accident' in my car" — although she had also speculated about dying in a helicopter or airplane crash.

The most vocal conspiracy theorist was Dodi's father, Mohammad Al Fayed, a wealthy businessman who owned the Ritz in Paris and London's Harrods department store. He insisted that Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, had masterminded a conspiracy by British spies to kill Diana and Dodi because he disapproved of their relationship.

Al Fayed claimed Diana was pregnant and planning to marry Dodi, and that the royal family could not countenance the princess marrying a Muslim.

In 2008, Al Fayed told an inquest that the list of alleged conspirators included Philip, Charles, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, Diana's sister Sarah McCorquodale, two former London police chiefs and the CIA.

WHAT THE INVESTIGATIONS FOUND

Several investigations ruled out a criminal conspiracy in Diana's death.

A French court ruled in 1999 that the crash was an accident caused by Paul, who was drunk and driving at twice the legal speed limit.

A three-year British inquiry led by Metropolitan Police chief John Stevens also found that Paul was drunk and driving at a high speed to elude pursuing photographers. Stevens' report said Diana was not pregnant, and had not been planning to marry Dodi.

Stevens concluded in 2006 that Diana's death "was a tragic accident."

In 2007, an inquest opened before a judge and jury at London's Royal Courts of Justice. It heard from 240 witnesses before concluding in April 2008 that Diana had been unlawfully killed through the reckless actions of driver Paul and the paparazzi.

In 2013, British police investigated allegations by an anonymous former soldier that Britain's special forces unit, the SAS, was involved in Diana's death. Police concluded there was "no credible evidence" and declined to reopen the investigation.

AND YET QUESTIONS REMAIN

Enough mysteries remain to ensure that the Diana conspiracy theories will never be completely silenced. There is no surveillance camera footage of the crash, although there were cameras in the tunnel.

Some witnesses reported seeing a bright flash in the tunnel just before the accident, though others did not.

And police have never traced a white Fiat car that was seen in the tunnel and may have collided with Diana's vehicle before the crash.

Pauline Maclaran, co-author of "Royal Fever: The British Monarchy in Consumer Culture," said conspiracy theories about celebrity deaths are not only common but durable.

"Human nature refuses to believe that something as random as a car accident could kill someone as special as Diana," she said. "When you have icons, it's very hard to believe that they can just come to an end in such a futile way."

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 10,2020

Hong Kong, Jun 10: The Hong Kong police on Wednesday said they had arrested 53 people during demonstrations on Tuesday evening which were called to mark the one-year anniversary of the protest against a bill proposing extraditions to mainland China. That protest grew into a pro-democracy movement and sparked seven months of protests against Beijing's rule.

Hundreds of activists took to the streets in Hong Kong yesterday, at times blocking roads in the heart of the city, before police fired pepper spray to disperse crowds, Al Jazeera reported.

The police informed that 36 males and 17 females were arrested for offenses including unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct.

Protesters had defied a ban on gatherings of more than eight people introduced by the Hong Kong government to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

"Lawful protests are always respected, but unlawful acts are to be rejected. Please stop breaking the law," police said in a tweet.

More protests are being planned in the coming days, with pro-democracy supporters fearing the proposed national security legislation will stifle freedoms in the city.

While details of the security law or how it will operate have yet to be revealed, authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong have said there is no cause for concern and the legislation will target a minority of "troublemakers".

But critics say the law would destroy the civil liberties Hong Kong residents enjoy under the "one country, two systems" agreement put in place when the United Kingdom handed the territory back to China in 1997. The agreement is set to end in 2047.

Japan had already issued a statement independently expressing serious concern about Beijing's move on May 28, the day China approved the decision and called in the Chinese ambassador to convey its view.

The United States, Britain, Australia, and Canada also condemned the move, with Washington saying it would revoke Hong Kong's special trading status granted under a 1992 law on the condition that the city retains key freedoms and autonomy.

China blames the protests in part on foreign intervention and is rushing to enact the national security law aimed at curbing secessionist and subversive activities in Hong Kong.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
August 7,2020

Russia boasts that it's about to become the first country to approve a Covid-19 vaccine, with mass vaccinations planned as early as October using shots that are yet to complete clinical trials -- and scientists worldwide are sounding the alarm that the headlong rush could backfire.

Moscow sees a Sputnik-like propaganda victory, recalling the Soviet Union's launch of the world's first satellite in 1957.

But the experimental Covid-19 shots began first-in-human testing on a few dozen people less than two months ago, and there's no published scientific evidence yet backing Russia's late entry to the global vaccine race, much less explaining why it should be considered a front-runner.

“I'm worried that Russia is cutting corners so that the vaccine that will come out may be not just ineffective, but also unsafe,” said Lawrence Gostin, a global public health law expert at Georgetown University. “It doesn't work that way... Trials come first. That's really important.”

According to Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia's Direct Investment Fund that bankrolled the effort, a vaccine developed by the Gamaleya research institute in Moscow may be approved in days, before scientists complete what's called a Phase 3 study.

That final-stage study, usually involving tens of thousands of people, is the only way to prove if an experimental vaccine is safe and really works.

Health Minister Mikhail Murashko said members of “risk groups,” such as medical workers, may be offered the vaccine this month.

He didn't clarify whether they would be part of the Phase 3 study that is said to be completed after the vaccine receives “conditional approval.”

Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova promised to start “industrial production” in September, and Murashko said mass vaccination may begin as early as October.

Dr Anthony Fauci, the top US infectious disease specialist, questioned the fast-track approach last week.

“I do hope that the Chinese and the Russians are actually testing a vaccine before they are administering the vaccine to anyone, because claims of having a vaccine ready to distribute before you do testing I think is problematic at best," he said.

Questions about this vaccine candidate come after the US, Britain and Canada last month accused Russia of using hackers to steal vaccine research from Western labs.

Delivering a vaccine first is a matter of national prestige for the Kremlin as it tries to assert the image of Russia as a global power capable of competing with the US and China.

The notion of being “the first in the world” dominated state news coverage of the effort, with government officials praising reports of the first-step testing.

In April, President Vladimir Putin ordered state officials to shorten the time of clinical trials for a variety of drugs, including potential coronavirus vaccines.

According to Russia's Association of Clinical Trials Organizations, the order set “an unattainable bar” for scientists who, as a result, "joined in on the mad race, hoping to please those at power.”

The association first raised concern in late May, when professor Alexander Gintsburg, head of the Gamaleya institute, said he and other researchers tried the vaccine on themselves.

The move was a “crude violation of the very foundations of clinical research, Russian law and universally accepted international regulations" the group said in an open letter to the government, urging scientists and health officials to adhere to clinical research standards.

But a month later, the Health Ministry authorized clinical trials of the Gamaleya product, with what appeared to be another ethical issue.

Human studies started June 17 among 76 volunteers. Half were injected with a vaccine in liquid form and the other half with a vaccine that came as soluble powder.

Some in the first half were recruited from the military, which raised concerns that servicemen may have been pressured to participate.

Some experts said their desire to perform well would affect the findings. “It's no coincidence media reports we see about the trials among the military said no one had any side effects, while the (other group) reported some," said Vasily Vlassov, a public health expert with Moscow's Higher School of Economics.

As the trials were declared completed and looming regulatory approval was announced last week, questions arose about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness.

Government assurances the drug produced the desired immune response and caused no significant side effects were hardly convincing without published scientific data describing the findings.

The World Health Organization said all vaccine candidates should go through full stages of testing before being rolled out.

“There are established practices and there are guidelines out,” WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier said Tuesday.

“Between finding or having a clue of maybe having a vaccine that works, and having gone through all the stages, is a big difference.”

Offering an unsafe compound to medical workers on the front lines of the outbreak could make things worse, Georgetown's Gostin said, adding: “What if the vaccine started killing them or making them very ill?”

Vaccines that are not properly tested can cause harm in many ways — from a negative impact on health to creating a false sense of security or undermining trust in vaccinations, said Thomas Bollyky, director of the global health program at the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 15,2020

Huawei will be completely removed from the UK's 5G networks by the end of 2027, the UK government announced on Tuesday after a review by the country's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) on the impact of US sanctions against the Chinese telecommunications giant.

In the lead up to this complete removal of all Huawei kit from UK networks, there will be a total ban on the purchase of any new 5G kit after December 31, 2020.

The decision was taken at a meeting of the UK's National Security Council (NSC) chaired by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in response to new US sanctions against the telecom major imposed in May which removed the firm's access to products which have been built based on US semiconductor technology.

5G will be transformative for our country, but only if we have confidence in the security and resilience of the infrastructure it is built upon, said Oliver Dowden, UK Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

Following US sanctions against Huawei and updated technical advice from our cyber experts, the government has decided it necessary to ban Huawei from our 5G networks. No new kit is to be added from January 2021, and UK 5G networks will be Huawei free by the end of 2027. This decisive move provides the industry with the clarity and certainty it needs to get on with delivering 5G across the UK, he said.

The minister, who laid out the details of the UK's ban on Huawei in the House of Commons, said the government will now seek to legislate with a new Telecoms Security Bill to put in place the powers necessary to implement the tough new telecoms security framework.

By the time of the next election (2024) we will have implemented in law an irreversible path for the complete removal of Huawei equipment from our 5G networks, said Dowden.

The new law will give the government the national security powers to impose these new controls on high risk vendors and create extensive security duties on network operators to drive up standards, DCMS said.

Technical experts at the NCSC reviewed the consequences of the US sanctions and concluded that Huawei will need to do a major reconfiguration of its supply chain as it will no longer have access to the technology on which it currently relies and there are no alternatives which we have sufficient confidence in.

They found the new restrictions make it impossible to continue to guarantee the security of Huawei equipment in the future.

After a ban on the purchase of new Huawei kit for 5G from next year, the aim is to completely remove the Chinese vendor's influence on 5G networks across the UK by the end of 2027.

The DCMS said Tuesday's decision takes into account the UK's specific national circumstances and how the risks from these sanctions are manifested in the country.

The existing restrictions on Huawei in sensitive and critical parts of the network remain in place, it highlighted.

The DCMS said the US action also affects Huawei products used in the UK's full fibre broadband networks. However, the UK has managed Huawei's presence in the UK's fixed access networks since 2005 and we also need to avoid a situation where broadband operators are reliant on a single supplier for their equipment.

As a result, following security advice from experts, DCMS is advising full fibre operators to transition away from purchasing new Huawei equipment. A technical consultation will determine the transition timetable, but it is expect this period to last no longer than two years.

The government said its new approach strikes the right balance by recognising full fibre's established presence and supporting the connections that the public relies on, while fully addressing the security concerns.

It stressed that its new policy in relation to high risk vendors has not been designed around one company, one country or one threat but as an enduring and flexible policy that will enable the UK to manage the risks to the network, now and in the future.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.