From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article <1165922269.679845.186430@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,   
   volcaran  writes   
      
   >banana wrote:   
   >> In article <1165884726.709916.91970@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,   
   >> volcaran  writes   
   >>   
   >> >banana wrote:   
   >> >> In article <1165866107.736223.274610@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,   
   >> >> volcaran  writes   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >banana wrote:   
   >> >> >> In article <1165671753.531593.199670@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,   
   >> >> >> trevjon2@yahoo.com writes   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> >>The allegation is very relevant. Is Butler-Sloss pursuing   
   >> >> it? Who knows, maybe the person is very willing to give evidence.   
   >> >   
   >> >And who is to say the matter has not/is not being considered. No doubt   
   >> >"Mr X" will be falling over himself to do so despite it taking 9 years   
   >> >for "him" to "emerge it" through a third party.   
   >>   
   >> He may have been scared, from knowing too much. Who wouldn't be?   
   >>   
   >> A similar point to yours might be made about Langman and Spearman who   
   >> hardly fell over themselves to deny the charges, which were first made   
   >> in 1999.   
   >   
   >Hardly similar. There is a significant difference between withholding   
   >material evidence (if in fact it is/was) and denying an unsubstantiated   
   >allegation by a person of dubious character.   
      
   So the UK Diplomatic Service employs communications clerks of dubious   
   character? Or did his character only become dubious once he started   
   blowing the whistle?   
      
   I doubt he's a known torturer like Nicholas Langman!   
      
   >Since you have snipped the   
   >question rather than answer it for the second time of asking I will   
   >take it that you are unaware of anyone else making the claim first   
   >hand. So we are left with an unsupported allegation based on   
   >questionable information provided by a Fayed bankrolled source with a   
   >demonstrable grudge against his former employer. It is notable also   
   >that Tomlinson cannot have had the information first hand yet you seem   
   >prepared to elevate the claim to "gospel".   
      
   This is untrue. I would like the allegations to be put to these   
   individuals in open court, so that they can answer them and also be   
   cross-examined.   
      
   At least the murderers of Stephen Lawrence 'claimed privilege' in   
   public.   
      
   >Perhaps your "analytical"   
   >skills are somewhat blinkered.   
      
      
   >> Personally I would like the embassy communications worker and the SIS   
   >> officers to give evidence at the inquests and to be open to   
   >> cross-examination by the next of kin of the deceased, or by lawyers   
   >> acting for them.   
   >   
   >Personally I am looking forward to Fayed taking the stand and   
   >subjecting himself to cross-examination.   
      
   I too would like Mohamed al-Fayed to give evidence, and yes, for him to   
   be cross-examined. His record in front of jurors in the UK is rather   
   good, of course, albeit not in front of Rowland-bankrolled corrupt   
   Whitehall officials.   
      
   But is there some sort of competition here? I would like all of the   
   people mentioned to give evidence and to permit cross-examination.   
      
   >For example, I await with   
   >interest his recounting of his conversation when Diana told him she was   
   >pregnant if the Stevens' report does in fact show that blood analysis   
   >from the car proves she wasn't.   
      
   I would like him to give evidence regardless of what the Stevens report   
   says.   
      
   >>Richard Tomlinson may perhaps also be willing to give   
   >> evidence from outside of the UK, the same way George Blake did in the   
   >> trial of Michael Randle and Pat Pottle.   
   >>   
   >> Is video film from the embassy available, or are they going to claim   
   >> privilege under the Vienna Convention?   
   >   
   >Is not the Vienna Convention a list of protocols which define the   
   >conduct between sending and receiving states?   
      
   Yes.   
      
   >It doesn't (to the best   
   >of my knowledge) define conduct between a sending state and its   
   >sovereign premises abroad (except in relation to a receiving state).   
      
   I believe it covers the relationship between two states when a crime is   
   committed outside an embassy with involvement from inside the embassy.   
   0r rather, an action which would otherwise be considered a crime - as   
   some asserted (dubiously IMO) happened when Yvonne Fletcher was murdered   
   in London in 1984. A standard example quoted in this context is when a   
   diplomat points a gun out of an embassy window and murders someone   
   outside. In the Paris case, the French state would have no authority to   
   demand the furnishing of British records, whether video or audio, made   
   within the embassy. This is clear from the Vienna Convention.   
      
   --   
   banana     "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you   
               give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to   
               Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the   
               rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)