The Schalter

Written by: Dan Shires

“I got the proofs. Basically not the proofs but all the circumstances and the cover-ups.”
- Al Fayed on testifying.

It finally happened. Possibly the crowning moment of the most needless inquest (of a succession of needless inquests) this land has ever known - Mohamed Al Fayed, purveyor of quality Harrods tat and a man for whom discretion has only ever happened to other people, took to the stand at the Diana inquest.

Let’s briefly recap: On 31 August 1997, a very famous woman and her current beau died in a Parisian underpass when their car piled into a concrete pillar. It became evident very quickly that the driver of the vehicle was travelling too fast, and from a post mortem blood test, had a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs in his system which most likely affected his driving skill.

Replace the identities of the victims with regular Jacque et Jill Public, and that simply is where an investigation would have ceased. Evidence accepted, tragedy acknowledged. But of course these weren’t just any people - one was a woman who had managed to change public perception of the British Royal family, and become her own cult of personality. The other was the Hello friendly son of Mohamed Al Fayed, businessman, tycoon, owner of Harrods, and high profile non-British citizen. And from very early on, it was clear that the inquest into the death of Diana and Dodi Fayed was not going to be a quick process.

Mohamed Fayed (the ‘Al’ is an affectation adopted much later for a more regal name - hence the Private Eye nickname for him: the Phoney Pharaoh) was born the son of a schoolteacher in the unremitting poverty of Egypt. A childhood of selling Coca Cola on the streets, and then sewing machines, led to the rather sudden jump in status when he struck up a relationship with Adnan Kashoggi and entered his import business. Kashoggi, its worth remembering, made his name being an international arms dealer. In marrying Kashoggi’s sister, Fayed was able to inveigle his way into the upper echelons of Middle Eastern, and consequently British, society. A job as financial advisor to the Sultan of Brunei netted him the money he needed to make a takeover bid on House Of Fraser from under Tiny Rowland’s nose (don’t get me wrong, watching two ruthless bastards fight like weasels in a sack is huge fun) and then finally the means - lauded and approved by Margaret Thatcher herself - to buy his jewel: Harrods.

A huge Anglophile, Fayed has craved approval from British society and acceptance into its largely imaginary hallowed halls - and it’s this desire which led him to loggerheads with the UK government.

“Why won’t they give me a passport? I own Harrods and employ thousands of people in this country.”

After the Harrods purchase, everything he did was designed to cement his Anglophile credentials. He resurrected Punch magazine, partially due to its reputation as a British institution, partially to have a mouthpiece with which to reply to Private Eye. It closed down again shortly after its rebirth. He bought Fulham FC and employed no less a manager than Kevin Keegan - even ‘offering’ him up as a potential England manager at a time the national team was rudderless. There were numerous charitable donations, but in the end, all to no avail. This was in part down to the rancorous feud with Tiny Rowland, in part due to the DTI investigations which revealed that he and his brother had “dishonestly misrepresented their origins, their wealth, their business interests and their resources” during the Tiny Rowland affair, and of course his starring role in the cash-for-questions affair (Al Fayed vs Hamilton and Aitken - really, whoever lost, we all won). Time after time he was denied a passport by whoever was the Home Secretary, regardless of the fact his second wife and four sons are classed as British - and that’s where the Anglophilia turned into a searing contempt for the British upper echelons, which goes some way to explaining the sorry tale we have today.

“The devastating thing is the class system, created of people who think they are above the rest of the human race. They think they can shit just on anyone. They think I’m a wog.”

- Vanity Fair, 1985

After the very public, very messy divorce of Charles and Diana, her friendship with Dodi must have been gleeful for Fayed - after all, here was ‘England’s Rose’ and once princess with his boy - how galling for the establishment, but also how wonderful a way to keep in with it as well. Who needs a passport when you have a princess as a prospective daughter-in-law? It was, however, a fledgling relationship only coming to light in mid-1997, and then of course, cut short in the Pont D’Alma tunnel at the end of August.

Only someone with a heart of stone could fail to feel sorry for a father who had lost a son, and in such a horrific manner. No matter what I thought of the Phony Pharaoh, to go through that is an awful experience. Except things started to get a little odd shortly afterwards.

In 1998, Fayed began claims that his son and Diana had been murdered by the British secret service, under the direction of Prince Philip. At this point, it’s easy to pass this off as a man consumed by understandable grief. By 1999, the slow moving French police investigation was concluded, with the verdict that driver Henri Paul was under the influence of drink, and prescription drugs, and was not fit to drive. This must have been crushing - to be told that your son was killed by an employee who was negligent - criminally negligent - to have been ‘on duty’ that evening. The reaction from Fayed was to protest louder - and it’s here we can start racking up the money all this is costing us.

Dismissing the French investigation, 2000 saw his demands for a joint UK inquest into both deaths rejected. 2002 saw Royal Coroner John Burton leave his post to be replaced by Michael Burgess. In fairness to Fayed, the wheels of the judiciary were rolling very slowly, but at last in 2004 Burgess opened an inquest into Diana’s death, appointing Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens to lead.

From this point on, Fayed begins what can be seen as delaying tactics - objections, points of law, and allegations against people running the inquiry, all seemingly making the prospect of the truth coming out further and further away. Which is odd to say the least. His allegations of a conspiracy gather apace, without a shred of evidence to back him up, but he’s helped all the way by a supine Daily Express who count their readership in Diana conspiracy front pages.

By July 2006 Burgess resigns, claiming a heavy workload. His replacement is Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss who almost immediately is denounced as an establishment stooge by Fayed when she refuses to hold public hearings. His protestations delay things longer and result in a humiliating climb-down from Butler-Sloss in December, when she relents to his demands. This coincides with the publication of Lord Stevens’ inquiry, which concludes the crash was a “tragic accident” and has no truck with any conspiracy theories surrounding the crash. A red rag to a bull, Fayed denounces Stevens as being part of the now increasingly large conspiracy, whereas previously he’s had Fayed’s fulsome support and trust in being an ‘honourable decent man’ - but only as long as he reaches a conclusion which knits with Fayed’s theories, it seems.

Butler-Sloss remains in Fayed’s sights when in March 2007 he wins a review into her decision not to appoint a jury. In April (shock horror) Butler-Sloss resigns, citing lack of experience in jury cases.

August 2007 sees the 10th anniversary of the crash, and still no formally convened inquest. A series of delaying tactics from the Fayed camp has seen not only the public spend reach well over £4 million, but a case which hasn’t even started yet. Does this man not want a free and fair examination of what happened?

Dame Butler-Sloss (man, I’m glad I don’t have to write that name again) is replaced by Lord Justice Scott Baker (nope, that’s a mouthful as well. Isn’t anyone called Smith any more?), which brings us almost up to date. Up to this point, the public has heard every aspect of Diana’s post-Charles life: from her partying, to her possible pregnancy, marriage plans (or not), to her chosen method of birth control. We, the grateful British public, have been thouroughly briefed on her ovulation and menstruation cycle. Fayed’s insistence at public hearings has ensured that the death remains as fresh and raw as ever.

And then, the star turn: Fayed took to the stand.

Never has so much sustained vitriol aimed at the Establishment contained so much unsupported bullshit: That Prince Philip ordered the execution, carried out by a photographer who blinded Henri Paul with a strobe light, and who has since been murdered by the security services. That Blair was involved. That the ambulance crew were secret service, who ensured she bled to death. That Diana had privately told Fayed alone that she was pregnant despite physical evidence showing she plainly wasn’t, that she was marrying Dodi, that she feared her ex-husband and father in law were trying to kill her… all great plot points in a Grisham novel, but which have no place to even be considered in an enquiry being paid for out of the public purse. Look, referring to Camilla as a crocodile made me snort into my beer, but it’s not a joke worth six million quid.

And here’s the thing: Private Eye have pointed out that if this can go beyond 31 August 2008, a claim of corporate manslaughter can’t be levelled - which would include physical evidence of Henri Paul’s blood sample, something that could see Fayed and his company culpable for the crash. If it’s levelled within the statute of limitations, that is.

Grieving father? Or some great ass-covering?

But what next for Fayed? Well, here’s a sobering thought. His conspiracy theories name around 100 people, including members of the Royal family, members of Diana’s family, senior policemen, judges and investigators.

And there’s more than a slight chance that Lord Justice Scott Baker may find that - hey - Diana and Dodi died in a tragic crash because they had a driver who was under the influence of drink and drugs, and they weren’t wearing seatbelts. If that happens, most of those people will be lining up to sue Fayed for libel. The Royals won’t, simply because they don’t, and a couple of names are also deceased. But everyone else can have a pop at Fayed which will keep him in the High Court for years, and likely bankrupt him.

We’ll never see that £6 million again. Granted, in the scheme of things, it’s small beer, but there’s a principle here that rankles me something awful: that such bizarre and unfounded, proof-free allegations could get to as high a court as they did, that we let him do this when no ordinary person would be given such credence. It’s a shocking indictment of how much ‘justice’ money can buy, and how, if Private Eye are correct, how much money can stop a nasty corporate manslaughter charge.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Click here to read more by Dan Shires

This post is tagged Al Fayed, Law, Princess Diana