An unseen documentary is causing outrage even before it is shown. The documentary claims to show a photograph of Princess Diana as she lay dying in a Paris tunnel after her car crash. The Unlawful Killing by filmmaker and actor Keith Allen alleges that the Princess had predicted her demise from an accident four years prior to it happening and that British officials and members of the Royal family conspired in an elaborate cover-up.
Allen calls it the inquest of the inquest, and the 90 minute film reportedly is backed by Mohanned Fayed, whose own son Dodi died in the crash as well. The movie will be screened in Cannes on Friday after cinemas in the UK refused to show it due to graphic content.
Allen has said that the Cannes screening will be both terrifying and exhilarating for him since it will be in front of the world’s media. The movie does not imply a pre crash conspiracy but a post crash one.
The conspiracy was not organized by one signal scheming fiend but by the entire British establishment collectively that includes – the lawyers, judges, police chiefs, politicians, secret service and the editors of the newspapers.
I haven’t seen the film, and nor will I be able to as I am from the UK. But surely when writing this article, the writer was taken in by the film:
“The conspiracy was not organized by one signal scheming fiend but by the entire British establishment collectively that includes – the lawyers, judges, police chiefs, politicians, secret service and the editors of the newspapers.”
Is it not true, that the writer has presented the contents of this film as fact? Not only as fact, but using such language as “fiend” and the lack of language such as “The film maker claims…” before the above quote is irresponsible as you (the writer) have 1. Not seen the film, 2. No proof of such claims and 3. have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the claims made by this film are correct. Is the problem of media bias not the true problem?