XPost: alt.talk.royalty, alt.gossip.royalty   
   From: bpears@freenet.co.uk   
      
   banana  wrote:   
   >I think you will find (am I getting the tone right?) that MI6, although   
   >definable as the UK State's main civilian foreign intelligence agency,   
   >has been known to have a smidgeon of interest in connection with   
   >security breaches in the UK public sector.   
      
   Source? Example? Evidence? Maybe true, maybe not. But saying   
   it doesn't make it so - something which conspiracy nuts never   
   seem to understand.   
      
   >It also has some judges and barristers on its payroll, of which   
   >unsurprisingly there is no official admission.   
      
   What a ludicrous sentence! First an assertion - just the usual   
   nonsense without source, example or evidence - that MI6 employs   
   judges and barristers. Maybe true, maybe not - but saying it   
   doesn't make it so.   
      
   Then making an issue of MI6 not admitting that they employ   
   judges and barristers, as if they routinely publish a list of   
   employees and have somehow mysteriously omitted the judges and   
   barristers. What nonsense - it is the **Secret** Intelligence   
   Service after all, and they do tend to be somewhat circumspect   
   about all of their employees.   
      
   And why the loaded word "admission"? That implies that employing   
   judges and barristers would be wrong - why would it be wrong?   
      
   And, of course, even if it were true that MI6 employs barristers   
   and/or judges - that proves nothing about this particular judge,   
   Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. And that's the bottom line -   
   you've not demonstrated anything about her whatsoever.   
      
   You've asserted, but not proved, that MI6 is associated with the   
   Cabinet Office Security Commission - you've asserted, but not   
   proved, that MI6 employs judges and barristers - and, of course,   
   you've implied that your assertions, unproven though they be,   
   somehow cast doubt on Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's ability to   
   do the job she's been picked for in an objective way. Well   
   I've got news for you mate - that's bullshit. Even if your   
   assertions are true, it's bullshit. And it remains bullshit   
   unless you show that *this particular judge* is somehow   
   compromised in her ability to make an honest assessment of the   
   evidence relating to Di and Dodi's deaths.   
      
   Lady Butler-Sloss was a first class judge, she did an excellent   
   job in the Cleveland inquiry and is trusted to chair a very   
   important commission - there's no reason whatsoever to doubt her   
   ability to do the job she's been given in a fair and balanced   
   way. In any event we'll almost certainly be able to make up our   
   own minds by reading Lord Stevens' report which will undoubtedly   
   constitute the bulk of the evidence considered at the inquest.   
      
   It's just more of your angling for a get-out option in readiness   
   for the inevitable verdict of the inquest.   
   --   
   Brian Pears   
   Gateshead, UK   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)