tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post116576404674481239..comments2023-10-24T10:09:22.146+01:00Comments on The Yorkshire Ranter: Sunday Princess Diana BloggingAlexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17153530634675543954noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post-1166182647945467542006-12-15T12:37:00.000+01:002006-12-15T12:37:00.000+01:00The sensational claims in the Observer seem to be ...The sensational claims in the Observer seem to be without foundation in the actual Operation Paget report. <BR/><BR/>The NSA admitted to 39 transcripts bin a FOI request made by Mohamed AL Fayed, rather than by the Operation Paget team, who did get this confirmed later.<BR/><BR/>The NSA claims not to have deliberately targeted Princess Diana's communications.<BR/><BR/>There is no statement about which country, let alone which times and dates the interceptions actually took place.<BR/><BR/>The Operation Paget team did not get access to these transcripts, for the usual reasons.<BR/><BR/>Nobody seems to have asked GCHQ to confirm, or more likely, to deny their involvement, either.<BR/><BR/>The Operation Paget Report names 2 alleged MI6 agents on the diplomatic staff at the Embassy in Paris, and another alleged agent amongst the paparazzi.<BR/><BR/>A DA-Notice memo was sent to the British press about this, but obviously not to bloggers. <BR/><BR/>c.f. <A HREF="http://spyblog.org.uk/2006/12/operation_paget_report_on_the_death_of_princess_diana_and_intelligence_agencies.html" REL="nofollow">Operation Paget report on the death of Princess Diana and intelligence agencies</A><BR/><BR/>The e-nation comment system is rejecting this as "incomplete" or as spam for some reasonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post-1165778108729644592006-12-10T20:15:00.000+01:002006-12-10T20:15:00.000+01:00Me, I'm backing the cancer of bent and twisted jou...Me, I'm backing the cancer of bent and twisted journalism.<BR/><BR/>It probably isn't another Echelon rumpus, 'cos I can't see the relevance of Echelon to this. You can be damn sure, though, that Arnaud Montebourg won't say a word about the French spooks letting the yanks run riot. <BR/><BR/>BTW, this is the alternate comments thread.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17153530634675543954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post-1165777787013551282006-12-10T20:09:00.000+01:002006-12-10T20:09:00.000+01:00Is this the beginning of another Echelon rumpus? O...Is this the beginning of another Echelon rumpus? Or can such goings-on at the Ritz be dismissed by waving the simple sword of truth ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5467119.post-1165770795247335282006-12-10T18:13:00.000+01:002006-12-10T18:13:00.000+01:00The Observer article is very vague. Who exactly is...The Observer article is very vague. <BR/><BR/>Who exactly is briefing them with details of this as yet unpublished Stevens Inquiry report ?<BR/><BR/>The article could imply physical tapping of the extensions or switchboard of the Ritz Hotel.<BR/><BR/>That sort of surveillance might not necessarily have been aimed specifically at Princess Diana, just a general surveillance trawl to try pick up intelligence on rich guests and their business deals.<BR/><BR/>The bit about MI6 not being informed may be true, but it seems irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>If they were involved in an intelligence operation involving Princess Diana or her entourage, then they would have been physically tapping the phones themselves, or getting GCHQ or the NSA to intercept the international traffic.<BR/><BR/>It seems unlikely that the French authorities would allow foreign, even allied intelligence agencies to bug the Ritz Hotel, without doing so first themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com