Diana – Cover Up or Accident?

Example of a smooth-tongued Speech Diana Diana Cover up or Accident? T here argon mevery a nonher(prenominal) conspiracy theories surrounding the end of the erotic love Princess Diana. I would firstly like to understand that these be not my opinions but items and quotations that I grow found in books or on the Internet. Since the Princess expiry in 1997, on that point was immediate pressure from the national towards the kinglike family, and towards MI6. picpicpicpicpicpicThe first conspiracy theory is that the close was faked.The story goes that fed up with the eternal intrusion into her surreptitious living by the media, Diana, aided by the resources of lover Dodi, arranged a spectacular death, in a hope that she could retreat to a sprightliness of privacy. A stick push through that went horribly wrong, atomic number 82 to her death. But would this idea be viable? My slang No. Diana was famous al nonp beil over the world. In this day and mount up it would n ot acquit been possible to countermand the press Diana and Dodi would grant kn k nowadaysledge this either too well. Also, she love her sons. In this plan she would name had to expire them. To me this theory is not what excreteedThe second conspiracy theory is that of the grounds one that stands out in contingent for me. A) Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones quieten lives, but testimony from Mercedes auto experts says that it would induce been almost undoable for anyone to take a leak survived a crash in the tunnel in a elevator cable car going at 121 mph. maybe, as driver Henri Pauls justnessyers claim, the car was not going that fast. Maybe the crash was faked by the army-trained Rees-Jones who had previously deposited Diana and Dodi elsewhere. My view Highly unlikely. If the bodyguard was to beat apart up the accident, why be in the car at all?If he had set up the accident I am sure he would nurture set up an excuse/alibi to not be in the vehicle. And as is unre markably known now, he was the only one wearing a seatbelt the fact that this salve his life seems most likely to me. B) Dodis vernacular driver was not used. Mystery belt up surrounds Henri Paul, the security officer, who stepped in at the croak minute to drive the Mercedes S-280. It took a extensive twain days for his name to be revealed, for instance. Co-workers at the Ritz Hotel say he kept himself to himself and never socialised with them.One indication of this conspiracy has it that Paul simply did not exist, an opposite that he was quickly whisked remote from the hospital later creation state dead by doctors in cahoots with the Al Fayed family. My view We know for a fact that the drivers were changed, but there is no unharmed distinguish to say why. Also, surely the Al Fayed family had more than one driver. If I was them I would fate to know the person control me in my car. Wouldnt you? Now finally from the show C) Just six hours before she died Diana allow slip to Daily Mail reporter Richard Kray that she was about to withdraw completely from public life.My view A funny one but is the reporter just tone for a cheap story or has he got the proof? The truth is still unknown. The final conspiracy is the most popularly recollectd. That the British MI6 killed her. nigh say that she was the taper some say that it was Dodi. Heres the evidence rogue elements in the British Secret help decide that Diana is a threat to the throne, and then the stability of the state. They take her out. As for Dodi, byplay enemies of Dodi and his father Mohammed Al Fayed assassinate Dodi, with the death of Diana a magnificent cover for their peration. My views be exactly that, and you should make up your own minds. But there is a hole of evidence to say that The Lady Dianas death was no accident. Either way, the populate of Britain have demanded answers for ten years now after coming close, then having all the evidence stolen Will we ever find out? My final view on this is, that as long as the pack trus devilrthy dont want us to, then no, we volition never find out the truth. getting Civil I am against the governing sanctioning same-sex sums. Am I uncharitable? Am I homophobic?Am I part of a fundamentalist spectral sect of some style? What if I bear witness you that I am against the government sanctioning marriages in the midst of a man and a cleaning lady as well? Am I against marriage? Am I an anarchist? Am I insane? Actually, I retrieve I have the sanest solution to the on the whole marriage debate and I dont give away anyone talking about it. My solution is to leave marriage where it belongs in religious and private institutions. What business is it of the government to sanction relationships between consenting adults? wherefore is it up to the government to define what a marriage is?Why should the government be involved in promoting or discouraging particular types of relationships? We are a free country so why is it up to the government to tell us how we, the citizens, posterior define our relationships and which ones are acceptable in their eyes and which ones are not? My contention is that unless relationships chosen by consenting adults of their own free go away endanger other individuals, the government has no business sanctioning them or pr eveningting them. Am I saying that the government has no role in personal relationships?Well, not exactly. Legal arrangements are necessary for the shoot for of expeditiously dividing property and providing for custody of any children resolvinging from a relationship if the relationship ends. by means of levelheaded arrangements, the rights of all involved can be protected. Thats why I believe that all sound coalitions between two peck who have attached to for each one other should all be elegant coalescences in the eyes of the government. Whether these relationships are called marriages or not is up to religious institutions an d the individuals themselves. picpicpicI have a friend who is a lesbian. The woman she loves is Dutch and they got married last pass in Holland where it is legal. I saw the pictures. They were happy, joyful. Their families and friends tended to(p) the ceremony and support them in their trueness to each other. They have a business firm together. They have jobs and pay taxes. They participate in civic activities. They are enjoying life, liberty and the search of happiness. But what if their families did not support their natural selection and their commitment to each other?If something were to happen to one of them, either a life threatening illness or even death, by law, the family could prevent the partner from being involved in making decisions for her loved ones care or even the arrangements for a funeral. Unless prior arrangements were made, the benefits of being a legal couple would not apply to these two committed partners who make every firearm as much of a plowshare t o society as any heterosexual married couple does. I have a friend who has two children with her partner.If their partnership were to dissolve, it is possible that the woman who actually gave line to the children could bar the other woman, the woman that the children have always known as their beget from having any contact with them. The non-birth mother would have no rights. Are the childrens rights protected here? Some people argue that allowing same-sex couples to have civilian unions would result in an unfounded financial burden on society, generally because of the benefits that currently apply to married couples that would now have to be extended to same-sex couples.So are we trying to prevent people from having equal rights to save a fewer bucks? To me, thats like saying we should not have allowed women the vote because it would increase the cost of elections. Some people are concerned that allowing same-sex couples the legal rights of a civil union would engage religio us institutions to marry them. There would be no such requirements. Churches and other religious institutions would be free to exercise their beliefs and traditions as they have always been.Two people who love each other should be able to commit to each other and be protected by law in the relationship and in the shell that the relationship ends. Any children who are the result of the relationship should have their rights protected as well. In my opinion, all people who want to have legal recognition of their committed status should have the option of a civil union and that all people joined in a civil union should have equal rights irrespective of their gender. Whether a name is given to that union beyond the legal one should be up to religious institutions and the individuals themselves, not the government.