Was Princess Diana offered security after her divorce?

[antelopevalley]

There is an interesting article in The Sun that says amongst other things, that Harry is asking lots of questions about Diana's death e.g. " Official judicial sources in Paris say the Duke of Sussex’s researchers have been seeking information about the car crash that killed his mother 25 years ago." One of the questions is allegedly whether Diana had been offered security after her divorce.

After her fatal crash Scotland Yard asked why Diana had no security. Tina Brown said that Diana had turned down security. But the suspicion is that Diana is in the same situation as Harry i.e. only offered security if attending an official royal event such as the Jubilee, but refused security for the rest of the time.

I know it is The Sun, but given Harry's fight around official security in the UK, which he has offered to pay for but still been refused - it rings true that he would be asking questions about his mother's security. It is clear if she was using official security at the time, she would still be alive.

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/19503595/prince-harry-diana-final-moments-book/

*The operation Paget Report, that should say.

If you were genuinely interested in learning about what happened, I would suggest you follow DianaDaybyDay on twitter. The account tweets out exactly what happened when on each day in the last few months of Diana’s life leading up tot he car accident on the morning of the 31st of August. It’s all impeccably tied back to the evidence, and is illuminating.

This is probably what the dispute is partly about, though.

I remember those vile little racists that were sent down and the nastiness they got sent down for. I’m not sure we’ve got any way of knowing if that is what the senior police would call a “credible” threat though. A credible threat is one that might result in physical harm, isn’t it, in security terms?

I imagine that case is the tip of the iceberg in terms of horrible stuff that is directed at them.

My understanding of this stand off has always been that Harry sees every instance of hatred as a serious threat to their physical safety but that the police/authorities are making distinctions between psychological and physical threat when they do their risk assessments, and that where the difference of opinion is coming from.

Operation Paget is what I am referring to. It was done 10yrs later. Lord Baker was frustrated at every enquiry he was trying to make. He only had the French authority documents to go on. These left out important witnesses that were never interrogated. I don't think there was even any explanation of why it took over an hour for Diana to reach the hospital. While there were enquiries about the CCTV at the hotel, the documents do not show what the speed camera picked up under the tunnel (which should be automatic for the high speed). They also never made any enquiry about the Mercedes being stolen a few weeks before and Mercedes themselves saying that in a crash the speed dial would revert back to 0.
They wanted an open and shut case from the looks of it.

I have no suspect whatsoever on this, but I do believe that there is a lot that needs to be clarified.

The delay in transporting Diana to hospital was explained at the time . The medics were trying to stabilise her before driving away .

They were trying to stabilise her, on site for an hour ?
Isn't the whole point of having a bed in the ambulance to try whatever you can en route to hospital where the specialists are.

What’s the point? It happened almost 25 years ago, has already been investigated and conspiracy theorists like you (and Prince Harry) wouldn’t believe it anyway unless it said that she was killed by the Royal Family.

I don't know whether to feel young or old.
Reading about all the Diana conspiracy stories reminds me of my youth (hurrah!), but seeing them all rehashed now is like seeing fashion revivals of things I wore first time round, which makes me feel old (boo!).
Has anybody remembered the other car (I want to say white Fiat, but I'm not sure) yet?

@notanotheroneagain. I’m no medical expert but cooking sense would indicate that you can’t move a patient who is in a very unstable condition without making things a whole lot worse. Have you never watched any of the many programmes about ambulances and emergency helicopters etc?. They have to stabilise the patient before they can be moved and this may take a long time. Otherwise you can kill someone who otherwise would have survived. And it’s not just Joe Bloggs who is working on the patient. They do have doctors on scene too.

Just checked: white Fiat Uno.
At least my mind's not gone yet.

Where have you been for the last 25 years? This has been discussed to death? The French system is different from ours.

They have more qualified doctors who attend scenes and more complex treatment is given at accident scenes. Their emphasis is on stabilising patients before transport.

Here and in the US we have a “scoop and run” model of getting casualties to hospital as fast as possible and the treating.

The two systems were compared endlessly after the Paris crash and dozens of experts concluded neither was better, they’re just different approaches.

Is that not what Harry is trying to find out ? Could she be moved. She was still alive at the time.

I don't think anyone on here, or even Harry, said that the rf did it. He simply wants a clear picture of what took place. And the French enquiry did not do their job well - and handed to us an incomplete documentation of what took place.

smilesy

On a more serious note, I agree. I think trauma medicine, as practiced in France at the time, put even more emphasis on stabilising the patient at the scene before attempting a transfer to hospital than UK medical practice.
Apparently Diana also arrested in the tunnel which would have taken time to deal with too.

Or, indeed, what HinchcliffeandMurgatroyd put much better.
I'm a slow typist.

They have more qualified doctors who attend scenes and more complex treatment is given at accident scenes. Their emphasis is on stabilising patients before transport.

There his nothing about any qualified doctors attending the scene.

There his nothing about any qualified doctors attending the scene.

Apart from the off duty doctor who provided first aid, which was purely fortuitous, the other doctor/s (I don't know numbers) arrived with the ambulance.

French ambulance service

the above link explains how the French emergency care service works. Scroll down to the section “Advanced Life Support (SAMU/SMUR)

Your link is more detailed than mine, smilesy, but I'll just add the following from an article I found via the BMJ (I know - that biased sleaze rag! ):

Several prehospital systems are set up to give prehospital medical treatment by a doctor. This is the standard pattern of prehospital care throughout Europe and Scandinavia, but in Britain doctors are not part of the normal ambulance service response.

The ambulance crew who attended the scene were under the control of fully-qualified Dr Jean-Marc Martino. He worked to stabilise Diana by using drugs to keep her blood pressure stable and resuscitating her after she went into cardiac arrest en route. The testament to his work was that she was still alive when she arrived at the hospital, given she had unsurvivable injuries.

(Never quite sure why it's always qualified doctors. You're a doctor or you're not)

I'm a qualified wine taster doncha know

(fully-qualified Dr Jean-Marc Martino

Actually, "fully-qualified" makes more sense, given a doctor, once qualified, isn't fully registered until they've done pre-registration house jobs.
Sorry. These are mere musings and nothing to do with the thread)

Ultimately it is the luck of the draw, depending on what type of injuries you have. Intense pre-hospital stabilisation will save some people vs scoop and run, but other people benefit from getting to a trauma centre asap. In an ideal world, you would vary your approach, depending on the nature of the injuries, but that is often not apparent immediately. The most obvious injuries - a haemorrhage for example - are frequently not the most life-threatening.

Geography makes a difference too. When I worked in Oz, with patients often several hours' flight from a trauma centre, we obviously did a lot more pre-hospital stabilisation than you would necessarily do in the UK. It's hard to manage unstable patients effectively in a helicopter, especially the small helicopters that tend to be used for medical evacuations. You really want to try to stabilise them at the scene, shove them into the plane/helicopter and run like hell for the trauma centre. France is a larger country than the UK so this may influence their approach.

Incidentally, I wouldn't agree that we have scoop and run in the UK, we just have less emphasis on pre-hospital trauma management than France.

I’m a fully qualified wine drinker… 😀

Incidentally, I wouldn't agree that we have scoop and run in the UK, we just have less emphasis on pre-hospital trauma management than France.

I’d rather hear HCPs discuss it than conspiracy theorists. 😁

Didn’t a female doctor arrive with the pompieres too? I’m struggling against the urge to look it all up again.