Skip to main content

Enough from Fayed already

As another day passes in the seemingly interminable inquest into the death of Diana, I am sure that I am not alone in losing patience with Mohamed Fayed.

Fayed (the Al- prefix is an honorific like the German Von- which he is not entitled to use) has over the years been repeatedly condemned as a dishonest and rather brutal individual who tends to use threats and bluster as part of his normal business. His illegal dismissals of staff at Harrods for example have, on more than one occasion, seen him condemned by the British legal system over several years. Therefore the tragic loss of his son has not been the cause of his erratic and generally poor behaviour, though of course it may have accentuated it.

Having had his day in court over the death of Diana and his playboy son Dodi, Fayed has made a number of very serious allegations about a very large number of people.

If the Inquest finds that Diana and Dodi were not in fact murdered, then I for one sincerely hope that all of those whose name Fayed has attempt to blacken, sue him. In particular the allegations that Fayed made against the bodyguard, Trevor Rees Jones and Kelly Fisher, Dodi's former girlfriend, were outrageous and disgusting- all the more so since these seemingly blameless people seem to have been more the victims of Fayed and less able to defend themselves.

Indeed in my opinion I think that should the verdict of the inquest prove to be accidental death, then criminal charges should be brought against this odious man. If due process establishes that Fayed is a liar, then personally I would not want to have this vile, pathetic excuse for a human being in our country. The insults he has made against our Royal house, were they not so completely laughable, should not only render him ineligible for citizenship- he should be thrown out.

Comments

Newmania said…
I `m sure her Majesty is not unduly upset by a man to be pitied as much as censored.Can`t say I saw you as a a loyal subject exactly CS.I thought you wanted us to be 'citizens' of some apalling superstate and beholden to President Blair.
Cicero said…
Well, I would prefer to be an active citizen, in the sense of an individual who may exercise civil rights, rather than a subject who is simply a person who is under the rule of another!

As you know, I do not believe in any kind of super state and still less one under the aegis of Blair...

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...