The death of the "People's Princess" is bringing calls for laws to protect 'privacy'. Except that the laws being talked about are mostly about limiting what people are allowed to do in public. Same-old, same-old. Laws are being discussed that deal with the 'licensing' and the 'regulation' of telephoto lenses and listening devices. Same-old, same-old. The fact that Dodi and Diana's staged death took place in a country with the most plentiful and restrictive laws concerning the public movement and actions of the press, seems to be lost in the similarly staged outrage against the private press. Does anyone doubt that whatever new laws are enacted will result in the further herding of the press into mainstream feeding pens, ala Whitehouse news conferences and military maneuvers? Of equal importance to the effect on restrictions of public activity that the staged murder of Diana and Dodi will have, is the restrictions on the press, through threats of arrest and intimidation. Typical government-spook operation. Witnesses and evidence subjected to detention and seizure. All 'news' of the event being coordinated by goverenment/LEA shills who 'point' us towards 'those responsible' and 'at fault'--with a mainstream press providing us with the 'solutions' to preventing the actions of free people resulting in similar tragedies in the future. The message is clear--freedom leads to tragedy. If people run around doing what they want to do in public, then there will be accidents and tragedies. This must be prevented at all costs. Get real. The same monarchy spooks who released the Dianagate tapes of Diana's private telephone conversations, in order to make her look like a slut in order to make Prince Charles sluttery look less serious, watch Diana twenty-four hours a day, are the same people who took possession of the photographic evidence of the murder scene. Diana herself, in a public interview, spoke of the Dianagate tapes as being just a small part of the monarchist conspiracy to tear her down and nullify the threat she presented to the anal retentive structure of the monarchy. Dodi's ex-fiancee plainly stated on TV that Diana would be alive today if she had not taken up with Dodi. The Fayed family has made it clear that they feel the deaths were the result of the monarchy not wanting Diana's image and influence being connected to those outside the loop of the monarchy. Think about it. The mother of the future King of England, getting married to a rich, political mobster. [Translate~~a non-white who buys parliamentary votes.] It's not going to happen. Ask yourself this--"What do the assassinated free-world figures all have in common?"--John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, John Lennon, Princess Diana. Answer: "They are decent people, visionaries who used their power and influence to fight for the empowerment of the citizens, and against the reign of a dictatorial secret government." Answer #2: "Once they were dead, everything they stood for became subject to revisionist history by their murderers." The initial assault after Diana's death was on the free press, the secondary assault (in reality, the main attack, the first only being a diversionary maneuver) focuses on placing the 'blame' for Diana's death with her stepping outside the loop of the anal-retentive monarchy and hanging out with parliamentary vote-buying thugs who employ loud mouthed drunk drivers. In the age of the ten-second sound-byte, giving the government spooks two whole days to manipulate the press coverage before the private citizens at the murder scene are allowed to speak, is a godsend. Once the paparrazi and the sandniggers have had the blame balanced on their shoulders, the press is not about to backtrack and look for the true story. Even job interview self-help books tell us that the first two minutes set the tone and future impression of the whole process. The governement FUD disseminators know that if they can have the first say in any event, that those pursuing the truth have to play catch-up from that point forward. Has anyone noticed that the 'news' surrounding this event has had precious little coverage of the people actually involved in the whole affair? The doctor who magically appeared on the scene and 'treated' Diana isn't known about or accessible for a couple days. The police, firemen, etc., are not interviewed, like they are in even the most extremely inconsequential of news story coverages. Get real--if a fucking cat gets rescued from a cocksucking tree, then we get to see an interview with the hero at the scene. In the death of a major public figure, the press doesn't bother to interview those at the scene of the event? Right... The first eye-witness interview I saw was by someone who used the word "explosion." That was the _last_ time I saw that interview. I saw _one_ mention of the Fayed family saying the monarchy had murdered Dodi and Diana. Never saw that again. Must not be news. Right... Notice that the press reports that the two little princes want to walk behind the casket. Is it a 'coincidence' that the two innocent victims who are now under the thumb of the monarchist spin-doctors are going to be front and center in the coverup of their mother's murder? Why are the thousands of death threats against Prince Charles if he tries to use the funeral to redeem his image *not* news? Why? Same-old, same-old. TruthMonger