SS UK TAIL WAGS US WASP DOG OF WAR

Frontline: Top Secret America by Info4uAndMe
THE POLITICAL TEST LABORATORY OF BRITISH OCCUPIED IRELAND

The Guineapigs

The Guineapigs were fourteen Irish political prisoners on whom the British Army experimented with sensory deprivation torture in 1971. It still continues 40 years later, on Marian Price who is experimented on, in a British military Hospital in Belfast today after her sister Dolours died as a result of drug experiments carried out on her while being forced fed 40 years ago. These 'techniques' were outlawed, following Britain's conviction at the International Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, but were exported by SS UK and used by their WASPs in the USA. 

In Ireland in 1971, there was a deliberate and careful use of modern torture techniques, not just to get information but to perfect the SS UK system of Sensory Deprivation for use against civilians. An ex-internee John McGuffin spent two years researching a book he wrote, following his release from where he had been held without charge or trial. The book called 'The Guineapigs"  was dedicated to the blanket men in Long Kesh concentration camp and the women political prisoners in Armagh jail. 'Na reabhloidi Abu.'

The CIA operates under orders from British

intelligence and was created by British intelligence 

in 1947. The CIA today is still loyal to the 

international bankers based in the city of London

and the global elite aristocratic families like the 

Rothschild’s and the Windsor’s. Since it was first 

started, MI6 has always brought drugs into Britain. 

They do not bring ‘some’ of the drugs into Britain but

 I would estimate MI6 bring in around ninety

percent of the drugs in. They do this by pulling the

 strings of many organised crime and terrorist 

groups and these groups like the IRA are full of MI6

agents...  James Casbolt


Web: http://www.jamescasbolt.com

Project Mannequin, UK cloning, Mind Control and Genetic Enhancement Program By James Casbolt

[2006] Underground Bases, Missing Children and Extra-Terrestrials  By James Casbolt,

[2006] Global drug trade is controlled and run by the intelligence agencies by James Casbolt

Clones, bio-plasmics and world leaders by James Casbolt

Friends and Star Kids
http://www.movie3mai.net/dnKLolaw3Pe4.html

[2006] Whistleblower dies in suspicious circumstances on stage at UFO conference

BookAgent Buried Alive, The Autobiography of Commander James Casbolt (2008)

http://www.jamescasbolt.com/mi6.htm

It may be a revelation to many people that the global drug trade is controlled and run by the intelligence agencies. In this global drug trade British intelligence reigns supreme. As intelligence insiders know MI5 and MI6 control many of the other intelligence agencies in the world (CIA, MOSSAD etc) in a vast web of intrigue and  corruption that has its global power base in the city of London, the square mile.  My name is James Casbolt, and I worked for MI6 in ‘black ops’ cocaine trafficking with the IRA and MOSSAD in London and Brighton between 1995 and 1999. My father Peter Casbolt was also MI6 and worked with the CIA and mafia in Rome, trafficking cocaine into Britain. My experience was that the distinctions of all these groups became blurred until in the end we were all one international group working together for the same goals. We were puppets who had our strings pulled by global puppet masters based in the city of London. Most levels of the intelligence agencies are not loyal to the people of the country they are based in and see themselves as ‘super national’.

It had been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the CIA has been bringing in most of the drugs into America for the last fifty years (see ex LAPD officer Michael Rupert’s ‘From the wilderness’ website for proof). The CIA operates under orders from British intelligence and was created by British intelligence in 1947. The CIA today is still loyal to the international bankers based in the city of London and the global elite aristocratic families like the Rothschild’s and the Windsor’s. Since it was first started, MI6 has always brought drugs into Britain. They do not bring ‘some’ of the drugs into Britain but I would estimate MI6 bring in around ninety percent of the drugs in. They do this by pulling the strings of many organised crime and terrorist groups and these groups like the IRA are full of MI6 agents.

MI6 bring in heroin from the middle east, cocaine from south America and cannabis from morocco as well as other places. British intelligence also designed and created the drug LSD in the 1950′s through places like the Tavistock Institute in London. By the 1960′s MI5, MI6 and the CIA were using LSD as a weapon against the angry protestors of the sixties and turned them into ‘flower children’ who were too tripped out to organise a revolution.

Dr Timothy Leary the LSD guru of the sixties was a CIA puppet. Funds and drugs for Leary’s research came from the CIA and Leary says that Cord Meyer, the CIA agent in charge of funding the sixties LSD counter culture has ”helped me to understand my political cultural role more clearly”. In 1998, I was sent 3000 LSD doses on blotting paper by MI5 with pictures of the European union flag on them. The MI5 man who sent them told my father this was a government ‘signature’ and this LSD was called ‘Europa’.

This global drugs trade controlled by British intelligence is worth at least 500 billion a year. This is more than the global oil trade and the economy in Britain and America is totally dependent on this drug money. Mafia crime boss John Gotti exposed the situation when asked in court if he was involved in drug trafficking. He replied “No we can’t compete with the government”. I believe this was only a half truth because the mafia and the CIA are the same group at the upper levels. In Britain, the MI6 drug money is laundered through the Bank of England, Barclays Bank and other household name companies. The drug money is passed from account to account until its origins are lost in a huge web of transactions. The drug money comes out ‘cleaner’ but not totally clean. Diamonds are then bought with this money from the corrupt diamond business families like the Oppenheimers. These diamonds are then sold and the drug money is clean. MI6 and the CIA are also responsible for the crack cocaine epidemic in Britain and America.  In 1978, MI6 and the CIA were in south America researching the effects of the natives smoking ‘basuco’ cocaine paste. This has the same effect as crack cocaine. They saw that the strength and addiction potential was far greater than ordinary cocaine and created crack cocaine from the basuco formula. MI6 and the CIA then flooded Britain and America with crack [see Gary Webb--ed]. Two years later, in 1980, Britain and America were starting to see the first signs of the crack cocaine epidemic on the streets. On august 23, 1987, in a rural community south of Little Rock in America, two teenage boys named Kevin Ives and Don Henry were murdered and dismembered after witnessing a CIA cocaine drop that was part of a CIA drug trafficking operation based at a small airport in Mena, Arkansas. Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas at the time. Bill Clinton was involved with the CIA at this time and $100 million worth of cocaine was coming through the Mena, Arkansas airport each month. For proofsee the books ‘Compromise’ and ‘Dope Inc’.

On my father’s international MI6 drug runs, whatever fell off the back of the lorry so to speak he would keep and we would sell it in Britain. As long as my father was meeting the speedboats from Morocco in the Costa del Sol and then moving the lorry loads of cannabis through their MI6, IRA lorry business into Britain every month, British intelligence were happy. As long as my father was moving shipments of cocaine out of Rome every month, MI5 and MI6 were happy. If my father kept a bit to sell himself no one cared because there was enough drugs and money to go round in this £500 billion a year global drugs trade. The ones who were really paying were the people addicted. Who were paying with suffering. But karma always catches up and both myself and my father became addicted to heroin in later years and my father died addicted, and poor in prison under very strange circumstances. Today, I am clean and drug-free and wish to help stop the untold suffering this global drugs trade causes. The intelligence agencies have always used addictive drugs as a weapon against the masses to bring in their long term plan for a one world government, a one world police force designed to be NATO and a micro chipped population known as the New World Order. As the population is in a drug or alcohol-induced trance watching ‘Coronation Street’, the new world order is being crept in behind them.

To properly expose this global intelligence run drugs trade we need to expose the key players in this area:

1- Tibor Rosenbaum, a MOSSAD agent and head of the Geneva based Banque du Credit international. This bank was the forerunner to the notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce international (BCCI) which is a major intelligence drug money laundering bank. ‘Life’ magazine exposed Rosenbaum’s bank as a money launderer for the Meyer Lanksky American organised crime family and Tibor Rosenbaum funded and supported ‘Permindex’ the MI6 assassination unit which
was at the heart of the John F. Kennedy assassination.

2- Robert Vesco, sponsored by the Swiss branch of the Rothchilds and part of the American connection to the Medellin drug cartel in Columbia.

3- Sir Francis de Guingand, former head of British intelligence, now living in south Africa (and every head of MI5 and MI6 has been involved in the drug world before and after him).

4- Henry Keswick, chairman of Jardine Matheson which is one of the biggest drug trafficking operations in the world. His brother John Keswick is chairman of the bank of England.

5- Sir Martin Wakefield Jacomb, Bank of England director from 1987 to 1995, Barclays Bank Deputy Chairman in 1985, Telegraph newspapers director in 1986 ( This is the reason why this can of worms doesn’t get out in the mainstream media. The people who are perpetrating these crimes control most of the mainstream media. In America former director of the CIA William Casey was, before his death in 1987, head of the council of the media network ABC. Many insiders refer to ABC as ‘The CIA network.)

6- George Bush, Snr, former President and former head of the CIA and America’s leading drug baron who has fronted more wars on drugs than any other president. Which in reality is just a method to eliminate competition. A whole book could be written on George Bush’s involvement in the global drug trade but it is well-covered in the book ‘Dark Alliance’ by investigative journalist Gary Webb.

Gary Webb was found dead with two gunshot wounds to the back of his head with a revolver. The case was declared a ‘suicide’. You figure that out. Gary Webb as well as myself and other investigators, found that much of this ‘black ops’ drug money is being used to fund projects classified ab ove top secret. These projects include the building and maintaining of deep level underground bases in Dulce in New Mexico, Pine gap in Australia, Snowy mountains in Australia, The Nyala range in Africa, west of Kindu in Africa, next to the Libyan border in Egypt, Mount Blanc in Switzerland, Narvik in Scandinavia, Gottland island in Sweden and many other places around the world (more about these underground bases in my next issue). The information on this global drugs trade run by the intelligence agencies desperately needs to get out on a large scale. Any information, comments or feedback to help me with my work would be greatly welcomed.

CIA CATHOLIC IRISH ALCOHOLIC Access UK Data

U.K. Warned-CIA Will Access All Government Data
By Conrad Jaeger

February 09, 2013 "Occupy.com" --  U.S. intelligence agencies will soon be able to trawl through all British government documents stored online including ministerial files, local authority records and public sector data thanks to an unchallenged amendment to a spy law in Washington.

Britain’s ambitious plans to store all government data on the so-called G-Cloud have led to warnings from the European Union that security will be compromised now that U.S. intelligence agencies have the legal right to survey all data held on U.S. owned Cloud services.

At least four U.S. companies are involved in the U.K. government’s G-Cloud project which Whitehall hopes will slash costs and “deliver fundamental changes in the way the public sector procures and operates.”

Eventually, it is hoped the G-Cloud will hold the bulk of State data in addition to that of schools, charities, the BBC and police, even the Bank of England.

While the recent amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have received scant attention in the British Press, there are a few Members of Parliament so concerned that they want Britain to think about ending all intelligence cooperation with the U.S.

“The Americans have got to remember who their allies are and who their enemies are,” Conservative MP David Davis told The Independent, warning of “a whole cascade of constitutional and privacy concerns for ordinary British people”.

Cloud storage is increasingly popular in the U.K. where around 35 per cent of businesses and an unknown number of private users employ some form of remote storage from U.S. based companies like Apple, Amazon and Google. The government wants to see even greater use of Cloud storage across all sectors in what it describes as a robust “public cloud first policy.”

The FISA amendments now give the CIA and NSA the right to access all this data not just in Britain or Europe, but anywhere in the world. U.S. citizens are excused this intrusion by the Fourth Amendment, but everybody else is included.

In the case of Britain, by putting all government data online – including health and criminal records – every facet of peoples’ lives will be open to scrutiny by intelligence analysts across the Atlantic.

Many warn that this will also lead to activists, journalists, politicians, Muslims and others being specifically targeted without the need to justify national security.

“In other words, it is lawful in the U.S. to conduct purely political surveillance on foreigners’ data accessible in U.S. Clouds,” warns the report for the European Parliament, Fighting Cyber Crime and Protecting Privacy in the Cloud by the Centre for the Study of Conflicts, Liberty and Security.

While most of the attention has been focused on Cloud storage and the effect FISA will have on Europe, the actual wording of the amendment speaks of “remote computing services” which could literally mean anything stored on a computer other than your own.

As it is, every financial transaction passes through U.S. intelligence channels. With the new extension, no stone need remain unturned. Every time you comment on a book, join a club, or do absolutely anything that passes through a computer owned by a U.S. company, you are open to scrutiny.

The Cloud, however, comes with other concerns. There is debate as to who legally owns what if it is stored or edited in the Cloud, and you can’t even bequest your online music collection to a loved one when you die.

NSA aside, hackers can easier access data en-route to the Cloud than they can on a local area network, and the Cloud administrators might one day be compromised. The companies themselves may go bust or be taken over. They might suffer some catastrophic event or decide to amended their terms and conditions.

The European Union is being urged to add a warning to all U.S. based Cloud services, with clear wording that anything stored in the Cloud will be under direct scrutiny by Federal authorities. The report also wants to see E.U. citizens given the same rights as Americans in U.S. courts.

“A lot of people wouldn’t realize where data is stored, and hence wouldn’t expect to be subject to U.S. law,” cautions another Member of Britain’s Parliament, Julian Huppert of the Liberal Democrats.

He wants to know if the government has received any guarantee from Washington that sensitive data will not be scrutinized as foreign intelligence fodder.

“If the U.S. will not give a clear assurance about government data,” he says. “Then we will have to stop using the Cloud, as we cannot allow that to happen.”

Proxy British Rendition Guilty of Torture European Court of Human Rights

The United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) runs a global incarceration operation of suspected terrorists, known as “extraordinary rendition”, which from 2001 to 2005 captured an estimated 150 people and transported them around the world. A document which is a summary of 42 classified CIA documents given to the British in 2002 meant for "Eyes Only" in the intelligence community, but the program's roots can be clearly discovered in British internment practiced in British Occupied Ireland outlawed by the European Court of Human Rights to which the British promised cessation only to replacing it with rendition, often using the US to torture and intern in return for British training.

The US government has threatened the British government that the US-British intelligence relationship could be damaged if this material were released.  The dimensions of this program for the most part are still classified but revelations regarding torture, includes documentation of the fact the CIA conducted "continuous sleep deprivation" under threats of harm, rendition, or being "disappeared," were declared by a British court as being "at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and in violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. "Eyes Only" in the intelligence community, but the program's roots can be clearly discovered in  Rendered persons are reported to have undergone torture by the receiving countries. This occurs with the cooperation and training of the United Kingdom who trained the CIA with its colonial experience with internment torture worldwide. Britain still practices internment without trial and deprivation torture in British Occupied Ireland.

European Court of Human Rights Finds CIA Guilty of Torture

America must now apologise to the German citizen, a victim of mistaken identity who was kidnapped and beaten by the CIA

By Amrit Singh

December 13, 2012 "The Guardian" --  The much-maligned European court of human rights has this week shown itself at its very best: standing up for the rights of an individual who has been denied justice for almost nine years since he was abducted, secretly detained, and tortured under the CIA's rendition program.

Khaled El-Masri, a German national, was seized by Macedonian security officers on 31 December 2003, at a border crossing, because he had been mistaken for an al-Qaida suspect. He was held incommunicado and abused in Macedonian custody for 23 days, after which he was handcuffed, blindfolded, and driven to Skopje airport, where he was handed over to the CIA and severely beaten.

The CIA stripped, hooded, shackled, and sodomized el-Masri with a suppository – in CIA parlance, subjected him to "capture shock" – as Macedonian officials stood by. The CIA drugged him and flew him to Kabul to be locked up in a secret prison known as the "Salt Pit", where he was slammed into walls, kicked, beaten, and subjected to other forms of abuse. Held at the Salt Pit for four months, el-Masri was never charged, brought before a judge, or given access to his family or German government representatives.

The CIA ultimately realised that it had mistaken el-Masri for an al-Qaida suspect with a similar name. But it held on to him for weeks after that. It was not until 24 May 2004, that he was flown, blindfolded, earmuffed, and chained to his seat, to Albania, where he was dumped on the side of the road without explanation.

In December 2005, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a press conference – while then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood by her side – that the United States had admitted it had made a mistake. But the US government still refused to acknowledge its shameful conduct in el-Masri's case and waged a successful campaign to prevent other governments from disclosing the truth.

El-Masri's subsequent search for justice has repeatedly been thwarted. The United States succeeded in getting el-Masri's US lawsuit dismissed on "state secrets" grounds without even responding to his allegations; in 2007, the US supreme court declined to review that dismissal. The Macedonian government resorted to bald-faced lies, claiming that it played no role in his detention or abuse, despite overwhelming evidence confirming his account. The German government refused to disclose what it knew about el-Masri's case, and apparently caved to US pressure not to seek extradition of CIA officials involved in el-Masri's rendition.

Today, the European court of human rights delivered a measure of justice to el-Masri. It vindicated his account of his ill-treatment, and unanimously found that Macedonia had violated his rights under the European Convention, including by transferring him to US custody in the face of a risk of ill-treatment, and facilitating and failing to prevent his being subjected to CIA "capture shock" at Skopje airport.

This is the first court to comprehensively and specifically find that the CIA's rendition techniques amounted to torture. The decision stands in sharp contrast to the abject failure of US courts to deliver justice to victims of US torture and rendition.

Both the United States and Macedonia must now issue el-Masri a full-scale public apology and appropriate compensation. Macedonia should also commit to an internationalized investigation capable of holding its officials accountable. There are plenty of examples of such inquiries into national issues that are too politically charged to handle unaided: Northern Ireland's 1997 Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) included members from Canada, the United States, and Finland.

But Europe's work is not over yet. Macedonia was not the only European country complicit in CIA renditions. A 2006 inquiry by Swiss Senator Dick Marty implicated 14 European governments – including the United Kingdom – in the CIA's "spider's web" of rendition operations. But with the exception of Italy, whose highest court recently upheld the convictions of US and Italian officials for involvement in rendition, neither the UK nor other complicit countries – including Lithuania, Romania, and Poland, which hosted secret CIA prisons – have conducted effective investigations capable of holding officials accountable for their participation in rendition.

The human rights principles at stake extend to the use of the death penalty. European governments are prohibited from transferring criminal suspects to the United States if they risk execution; yet Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi national, was secretly flown to Guantánamo Bay after being held in secret CIA prisons in Romania and Poland. He now faces a possible death sentence after a trial by military commission that does not meet international standards.

The European court's decision in the el-Masri case is a clarion call for accountability for the flagrantly illegal CIA rendition program.

The time has come for European governments to stand up to the United States and break the conspiracy of silence, regardless of the diplomatic consequences. As former Human Rights Commissioner for the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammerberg, rightly said on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the 11 September attacks:

"The purported cost to transatlantic relations of pursuing such accountability cannot be compared to the damage inflicted on our European system of human rights protection by allowing ourselves to be kept in the dark.

Diane Inquest: British News Blackout continues

Earlier transcripts, from a news blackout by the British media, of censored information, deemed by the authorities, as not appropriate for British commoners.

>


http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/030308am.htm




Diane Inquest, Secret Service questions remain unanswered ???. The usual censorship of the press continued in Britain on the Diane inquest. Commoners in Britain suffered another day of a news blackout, of startling new revelations at the inquest, into the cause of her death and questions that remain, regarding the involvement of British secret services.

Mr. Darren Lyons had told police, he was convinced that British secret service agents had raided his office in London, searched and/or planted audio and video surveillance devices there.

Mr Lyons was cross-examined on the dark subject of secret service involvement, by Mr. Nicholas Hilliard QC.

Hilliard: Right. The next incident I want to ask you about, please, Mr Lyons, is the early hours of 5th September 1997. So we are moving on three days or so from the Tuesday, all right?
Lyons: Yes, sir, yes.
Hilliard: We have - and again perhaps we will hear about this later - a police computer print-out that deals with a call, I think at 00.52, so 8 minutes to 1 in the morning of 5th September 1997.
Lyons: That is correct, sir.
Hilliard: When the police were called and came to the premises.
Lyons: Yes, sir.
Hilliard: Now, I think you had gone out, is this right, to dinner with staff that evening?
Lyons: That is right, sir.
Hilliard: Can you help us, please, with what happened when you came back to the offices?
Lyons: Yes, sir. As we came back, I noticed, walking back towards the office, that the whole of Clerkenwell Road was lit up, except for my office, which I found obviously strange, and there was not a light on in the building. As I approached over to the building, I unlocked the door, the alarm was not on, there was no power to the building. As I entered, I saw a faint light or something behind it with a - to describe it to you, sir, there was a wall between the front and back office computer room that was all bricked glass, so it was diffused. I walked in and saw this, found it odd and - it seemed like some kind of a flashlight or - there was certainly a fuzzy light and then I heard a ticking noise. Now, obviously, as you can imagine at the time, with what was going on around us, the first thing that registered in my brain was a degree of panic as I felt that this could be - came from the earlier threat that had been made to our offices and other threats throughout this particular time. I immediately ran from the office and dialled the emergency services and several police cars arrived within four to five minutes, I think. I cannot be specific on the time, but pretty much immediately. The police offers told me, when they arrived, not to panic, entered the building, and they could find at the time, sir, no visible force of entry into my premises. From what I have said before, nothing seemed to have been stolen, so ...
Hilliard: Right, but if we take it bit by bit, they found nobody on the premises, is that right?
Lyons: That is correct, sir.
Hilliard: Although you heard the ticking sound and no doubt because of what somebody had said in the phone call earlier in the week, they were going to blow the building up, you were concerned about that, but no ticking bomb was found, is this right, in the premises?
Lyons: No, it was not, sir, indeed, but you can understand the worry at the time with that kind of sound.
Hilliard: I quite understand because, as I say, of the call that you had had earlier in the week.
Lyons: Indeed.
Hilliard: In the police computer print-out for that night, at 18 minutes past 1 in the morning, there is an entry that says that the ticking sound was clocks ticking in the newsroom.
Lyons: If that is what the police statement says, that could well be the case, sir. There certainly were several clocks up on the newsroom wall, behind quite a solid glass panel, from all our country destinations and offices round the world, whether it be Sydney, Los Angeles, New York, London and Tokyo.
Hilliard: The light that you had seen, the kind of flashlight, did that transpire to have come from a computer screen that was still on?
Lyons: The police - that is exactly what the policeman said to me. The strange thing was that the power was completely cut out.
Hilliard: Right. Just one other part of this topic.
Lyons: Yes, sir.
Hilliard: You have expressed, I think, in the past, the opinion that the security services were in your offices that night.
Lyons: Sir, I think that comes from a situation where certainly there had been - on the street and talk between the photographers at the time, there had been another break-in to another French gentleman, I think it was Lionel Cherrault's home or office.
Hilliard: We heard all about that yesterday.
Lyons: Okay.
Hilliard: So we know what what you are talking about.
Lyons: Okay. I think that - the talk that came back to my office at the time was that people had been saying that the security services broke into his situation and stole computers. I think the assessment at that stage, sir, was made on why would two picture agencies have people break in at the same time. So it was another situation of - I suppose one would say "assumption". I have no evidence of who was in my office that particular night at all. I got out of there as quickly as I could.
Hilliard: I suppose we have to add if anyone was actually in your office that night.
Lyons: Point taken, sir, yes.
Hilliard: In due course, did you make a statement - I asked you about this earlier - to somebody who was acting on behalf of Mohamed Al Fayed? Did you talk about the events that you have been telling us about?
Lyons: Yes, I did. I recall - I think it was a Mr Macnamara at the time.
Hilliard: How did that contact come about? What was the first contact?
Lyons: It was a telephone conversation. He phoned me and was extremely polite and asked me could he come - I cannot remember the time or date this took place or the time after the incident, but he asked if he could come down and meet me privately to discuss the situation. Mr Fayed had felt that my thoughts on the subject of what happened and those particular nights surrounding that time would be helpful, and also to get some photographs of the last days of his son that were taken with the Princess of Wales in the South of France, which I packaged up and sent over to his office as a gift.
Hilliard: So, what, there had been some initial contact after which you had sent some photographs?
Lyons: That is correct, sir, and then a meeting was arranged. Mr Macnamara came over and met me in a bar in Clerkenwell, a bar called "1920". We sat down and had a frank discussion. I think he asked me would I make a statement and of course - I said of course I would. In these circumstances, I would be willing to help Mr Fayed in every way I could.
Hilliard: Were you paid any money for the photographs that you had provided?
Lyons: No, sir, I was not. I was offered, for my time and expenses, an envelope, which I refused to take, but thanked him anyway.
Hilliard: Did you know what was in the envelope?
Lyons: No. I assumed it was money because I was told at the time, "Mr Fayed would like you to have this for your time and expenses", sir.
Hilliard: In any event, you had provided, is this right, photographs of them on the holiday in the South of France by this time? You had already provided those?
Lyons: That is right, as a gift. Yes, sir, I sent them over because they were wonderful pictures of the two of them together and I felt that it was a nice thing to do in the circumstances, and he was very - I also received a call back from Mr Macnamara after that, that Mr Fayed was extremely appreciative of this.

Mr. Lyons has maintained over the last ten years that secret service agents raided his office. The puzzling thing about the incident is that on a very busy London street, this was the only office that suffered a power cut and no other building was affected.

Questions remain unanswered: Who broke into the Big Pictures office and what were they after ? What about the the raid on Mr. Cherrault's office at the same time ???

MI6 'were not holding Diana files'....Really ?

MI6 'were not holding Diana files'....Really ? Then who reported to the Windsor "Way ahead Group " reported in the Mirror ?
Published: Wednesday February 27,2008 by JonO

QUEEN 'TO STRIP HARRODS OF ITS ROYAL CREST'

Sunday Mirror, Aug 31, 1997 Andrew Golden

The Royal Family may withdraw their seal of approval from Harrods ... as a result of Diana's affair with owner's son Dodi Fayed. The top people's store - with its long and proud tradition of royal patronage - may be about to lose the Prince of Wales royal crest. Senior Palace courtiers are ready to advise the Queen that she should refuse to renew the prestigious royal warrants for the Knightsbridge store when they come up for review in February.

It would be a huge blow to the ego of store owner Mohammed Al Fayed - and would infuriate Diana, who was yesterday understood to be still with Dodi aboard his yacht, near the Italian island of Sardinia. But the Royal Family are furious about the frolics of Di, 36, and Dodi, 41, which they believe have further undermined the monarchy. Prince Philip, in particular, has made no secret as to how he feels about his daughter-in-law's latest man, referring to Dodi as an "oily bed-hopper".

At Balmoral next week, the Queen will preside over a meeting of The Way Ahead Group where the Windsors sit down with their senior advisers to discuss policy matters. MI6 has prepared a special report on the Egyptian-born Fayeds which will be presented to the meeting.

The delicate subject of Harrods and its royal warrants is also expected to be discussed. And the Fayeds can expect little sympathy from Philip. A friend of the royals said yesterday: "Prince Philip has let rip several times recently about the Fayeds - at a dinner party, during a country shoot and while on a visit to close friends in Germany.

"He's been banging on about his contempt for Dodi and how he is undesirable as a future stepfather to William and Harry.

"Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences should she continue the relationship with the Fayed boy.

"Options must include possible exile, although that would be very difficult as, all said and done, she is the mother of the future King of England.

"She has also been warned about social ostracism. But Diana's attitude is if that means not having to deal with the royals and their kind, then she would be delighted."

There are some who believe Diana may be past caring and has decided to look towards those who can afford to keep her in the lifestyle to which she became accustomed. The Fayed family have all the trappings of vast wealth... wherever it originated from.

And Dodi has told Diana what he has told many of his other beautiful girlfriends in the past: "It's my father's store and you can have what you want. Charge it to my account and I'll just sign the bill." But now the Royal Family may decide it is time to settle up.

By the time of the Sunday Mirror’s second edition, the story had been dropped. A terrible ‘accident’ involving Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed, first-born son of Mohamed Al Fayed, the owner of Harrod’s, happened minutes before the second edition was about to go to press. The news filtered in to every newsroom in London and the nation waited breathlessly for the wheels of history to turn, not daring to believe for a moment that anything could have happened to the People's Princes.


Just incase you missed the paragraph.....

.....At Balmoral next week, the Queen will preside over a meeting of The Way Ahead Group where the Windsors sit down with their senior advisers to discuss policy matters. MI6 has prepared a special report on the Egyptian-born Fayeds which will be presented to the meeting.



The opinions and views expressed in the above comment are purely those of the writer.

BRITISH CENSORSHIP

Prince Philip

Under questioning Mr. al-Fayed reiterated that he was in "no doubt" that Diana and Dodi were murdered by UK security services on the order of Prince Philip.

He declared: "It´s well known he is a racist. He´ll not accept my son as a person who is different religion, naturally tanned, curly hair. They´ll not accept he´ll have anything to do with the future king." He did not think that the Queen was involved.

But he added: "Prince Philip is the actual head of the Royal Family. He was brought
up by his auntie who married Hitler´s general. Would someone growing up with Nazis accept my son? No way. Time to send him back to Germany or where he comes from."

Then he continued: ""You want his original name? It ends with >Frankenstein<."

Prince Charles

Insisting Charles wanted Diana out of the way so he could marry Camilla, Mr. al Fayed said: "He knows what is going to happen because he´d like to marry his Camilla."

Then he added: "They cleared the decks, they finished her, they murdered her. And now he is happy. He married his crocodile wife."

The Princess

When the questioning moved on Mr. al Fayed claimed that Diana told him before and during the holiday they shared in July 1997 of her fears for her safety. He said: "She told me she knew Prince Philip and Prince Charles were trying to get rid of her."

He also asserted: "She suffered for twenty years this Dracula family."CENSORED
Diana coroner in contempt warning

7 hours ago
The inquest on Thursday was hearing evidence from the widow and son of a paparazzi photographer, James Andanson.

He had taken pictures of the princess before the crash that killed her and Fayed in Paris.

Andanson was found dead in a burnt-out car in 2000.

The inquest continues.

CENSORED


The coroner in charge of the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and her lover Dodi Fayed has issued a warning to anyone commenting on the value of the hearing.

International interest and demands for the hearing to be shut down spiked this week with evidence from Mohamed al Fayed and former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove.

Lord Justice Scott Baker told the central London court: "These inquests which are an inquiry into two deaths and are being heard by a jury ... They will continue to be heard by a jury on evidence they hear in this court and nothing else. Comments made outside this court, often about a limited aspect of the evidence, may tender the maker or publisher liable to contempt of court."

He went on: "I again urge great care that nothing is said, written or published that may influence the jury."

Michael Mansfield QC, for Mohamed al Fayed, asked the Coroner to explain the "parameters and legal necessity" for the inquests.

He also noted that it is now widely-known that Diana had fears for her safety.

The inquest has heard Diana's friends discuss her private life in detail.

Earlier this week Mr al Fayed told the jury his son was "slaughtered" by MI6 on Prince Philip's orders because she pregnant with Dodi's child and the couple were about to get engaged. Driver Henri Paul was also killed in the Paris car crash in August 1997.



Why does Mohamed Al Fayed get such stick?

Thursday, 21 February 2008

How the great and good of the British establishment must be rejoicing – discreetly sheltered by their castle walls and stucco facades. They finally granted Mohamed Al Fayed his yearned-for day in court, and now the whole Diana conspiracy has evaporated in the steam of his own overheated rhetoric. That's what we call fair play, old chaps, fair play.

But it is not fair play at all, is it? All right, so Mr Al Fayed appears to have been treated with due deference inside the court, as the bereaved father he will remain for the rest of his days. As a key witness and man of material substance, he might have hoped for gentler handling, but even the most hostile questions never went beyond the pale. Dodi's father was allowed his dignity. There is still such a thing as courtroom etiquette, and far be it from the establishment to breach it.

Outside the court, it was another matter. The media coverage was merciless. Front pages hurled invective. Yet most merely reproduced Mr Al Fayed's own colourful expressions. There was no need to embellish, still less ridicule. The owner of Harrods had done it all himself.

So much for the headlines. The accompanying reports dripped with innuendo. There was race – who was this man, it was implied, to speak of our Royal Family as "Draculas" who would never accept his son? Silent answer: an Arab with the excitability that belongs to that alien part of the world. And there was class: in all the references to the billions Al Fayed spent lurked disdain for a shopkeeper made good. Oh, and he wasn't quite dressed for the occasion; the wrong sort of check, you know. At once condescending and contemptuous, the reports let us know that this Al Fayed character, whoever he was, was definitely, positively, not "one of us".

Could such negative – no, insulting – coverage have been predicted? Of course. It was no more surprising than The Sun headline, "45 Minutes from Doom" that followed publication of the dossier stating the time within which Saddam Hussein could deploy his non-existent weapons. Once you know how the relevant sections of the popular press work, you can play them like the proverbial violin.

In giving Mohamed Al Fayed his day in court, the establishment took the most negligible of risks. Short of failing to turn up or answering in curt monosyllables, there was nothing Mr Al Fayed could do to escape the trap. Too emotional? Too un-British? Too... er, common? You almost wonder why, if it was going to be so easy to damn his credibility with his own words, he wasn't invited to the witness box a decade earlier.

Those of us who still suspect that more lies behind Diana's death than an irresponsible French driver, were dismissed as fantasists, who now had to believe what the establishment had told them. Because Al Fayed was emotional and hyperbolic, every aspect of his story was judged unworthy of consideration; he was speaking cock and bull.

Yet the one does not follow from the other. How many times do you have to say this: here is a father, bereft of his elder son. You can argue, if you like, that he has money and interests sufficient to absorb his sorrows – unlike fond fathers of lesser means. You can criticise his son's lifestyle: to put no finer point on it, Dodi was a playboy; one hopes Diana knew the life she was getting herself into. You may have views on Mohamed Al Fayed's character or his merits as a businessman.

That he may not have presented his case in the most convincing way for an audience more attuned to understatement, however, does not mean that his belief in a conspiracy is discredited. There are old questions that remain unanswered: that white Fiat Uno; the French paparazzo found later with his throat cut; the contradictory accounts of the chauffeur's drinking habits; Diana's fears that she would die in an arranged car accident; and the presence of an MI6 team in Paris on the fateful weekend.

And there are new questions that have been raised by this inquest: not least why witnesses at the scene who volunteered their accounts were not properly interviewed at the time. It is also curious that the Metropolitan Police failed to come clean about Diana's written fears for her life after she died. You might also add the claim that the secret services experimented with dazzling lights for the purpose of causing road accidents. But that came from a supposedly discredited former agent, so it can't possibly be true – can it?

As the Diana inquest lumbers on, Mohamed Al Fayed's testimony is being held up as proof that the whole exercise was ill-conceived and futile. It is a classic case of allowing the messenger to obscure the message. I wonder in whose interests that might be?

m.dejevsky

Al Fayed Details Diana's Murder

UPDATE FEB 19

Princess Diana feared the Royal Family would kill her while her sons were not present, her inquest has heard.
She told Dodi Al Fayed she would be killed in an accident, but stressed that Princes William and Harry "would never be harmed", it was said.

Dodi's US assistant, Melissa Henning, said these were Diana's thoughts just weeks before the couple died in a Paris car crash in August 1997.

The couple "deeply" believed this was a possibility, Ms Henning said.

She said she thought the claims were a "little far-fetched" at first.

'Very difficult'

Ms Henning heard Dodi's fears over a dinner in August, shortly before their deaths, she said.

Speaking via videolink from the US, she said: "He told me that Diana was very concerned for her personal safety. They had discussed this several times.

"She had felt the Royal Family did not want her around any more.

"She thought they felt she was a threat to them and they would prefer not to have her around.

"She felt it would be an accident and it would only happen when the boys were not with her because the boys would never be harmed."

Ms Henning said she was sceptical, adding: "She was such a public person that I felt it would be a very difficult thing to accomplish."

She contacted Mohamed Al Fayed about the conversation following the crash, the court heard.
Harrods owner Mohammed Al Fayed has appeared before a coroner outlining the conspiracy which he believed was hatched to kill his son Dodi and Princess Diana in August 1997.

Mr Al Fayed claimed that:

# The car crash in which Diana, Dodi and their driver, Henri Paul, were "murdered" was orchestrated by MI6 on the instructions of the Duke of Edinburgh

# Britain is not really a democracy, but is controlled from behind the scenes by Prince Philip, the Lord Chamberlain and an organisation called the Way Ahead group "who decide the destiny of this country"

# The murder was carried out at the behest of the security services by photographer James Andanson, who has since died, by using a strobe light to blind Mr Paul

# Mr Andanson was later murdered by British security services

# The then-prime minister, Tony Blair, was part of the plot

# British and French security services employees may have been part of the ambulance crew that took Diana to hospital to ensure she bled to death. A hospital which could have treated her was 10 minutes from the site of the crash, Mr Al Fayed said, but she was not taken to another medical building for an hour

# Robert Fellowes, the Princess's brother-in-law and at the time the Queen's then-private secretary, was at the British Embassy in Paris prior to the accident and took control of the building's communication centre to contact GCHQ

# Sir Michael Jay, at that time the British ambassador to France, was also involved in the conspiracy

# The CIA also took part by tapping mobile phones

# Princess Diana told Mr Al Fayed personally that "she knew Prince Philip and Prince Charles were trying to get rid of her"

# Prince Philip was a "Nazi" and a "racist", and his real name "ends with Frankenstein"

# Diana's divorce lawyer, Lord Mishcon, wrote a note in October 1995 outlining her fears that there was a plot to kill her in a car crash. Lord Mishcon passed this to police after the crash

# But it was only after the princess's ex-butler, Paul Burrell, produced a note from the princess making similar allegations in the Daily Mirror in October 2003 that the Metropolitan Police agreed to hand over the note to the inquest

# Diana and Dodi told Mr Al Fayed one hour before the crash that she was pregnant and that the couple would announce their engagement days later. Mr Burrell was also told

# Dodi told Mr Al Fayed: "I bought the ring"

# But once the security services - who were bugging their phones - learned of their plans, the decision was taken to have them assassinated

# Diana told Mr Al Fayed that she had kept a wooden box, and if anything were to happen to her the contents of the box must be made public

# Mr Burrell and Diana's sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, had promised to keep this box safe, but failed to do so

# Mr Paul was in the pay of MI6, as was Diana's close friend Rosa Monckton

# Blood supposedly taken from the body of Mr Paul in a Paris mortuary after the crash - which appeared to show the driver had been drinking - was not really his

# Professors Lecomte and Pepin at the mortuary were employed by French intelligence to switch the samples and assist the cover-up

# In addition, mortuary staff took Diana's "guts out to really completely falsify the body" and conceal that she was pregnant. She was embalmed to "corrupt the body"

# The former home secretary, Jack Straw, was acting on the orders of "dark forces" when he refused Mr Al Fayed a passport

# Bodyguard Trevor Rees - the only survivor of the Paris crash - was "turned against" Mr Al Fayed by MI6, as were his colleagues Kes Wingfield and Ben Murrell

# Mr Wingfield was lying when he said Mr Al Fayed had approved a plan to use a decoy and for Diana and Dodi to leave by the back door of the Ritz hotel in Paris

# The security services rewarded Mr Rees for his involvement in the plot with an appointment as head of security for the United Nations in East Timor

# Journalists working for the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday, The Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph - acting on the instructions of MI6 - have all been engaged in a campaign to destabilise Mr Al Fayed's businesses as a punishment for speaking out against the conspiracy

# Diana's relationship with heart surgeon Hasnat Khan was "not serious". Mr Al Fayed said she would never marry someone who "lived in a council flat and has no money"

# Lord Stevens, the former Met police chief who conducted a report into the princess's death, was influenced by the establishment to conclude Diana's death was an accident