Diana again (sorry)

Today's Express screams: Diana: New Sensation.

Really? A sensation? A new sensation?

Is she alive?

No. Still dead, apparently.

So, sigh, what is it this time?

Apparently, a civil court in Paris has ruled that there were:

'unnecessary delays' in investigating a mix-up over controversial blood tests.

Accordingly, the Court of Grand Instance fined the French Republic £5,000 to be paid to Mohammed Al Fayed (he had wanted one million). The Express still quotes him favourably:

'It is a major step towards uncovering the truth about what really happened that night. I am delighted that the French court has recognised that I have been denied justice.'

They didn't recognise any such thing, but the Express doesn't both to challenge that statement. But ummm haven't we been through all this before - several times over? Why can't the Express just leave this alone?

Richard Palmer and Peter Allen's story begins:

Senior French officials who investigated Princess Diana’s death were blamed for a cover-up yesterday in a dramatic court ruling which condemned them for failing to check whether vital evidence was forged.

Ah - a 'cover-up'. That again. Except, it was more of a cock-up than 'cover-up' and the article contains a quote that proves they weren't blamed for the latter:

In their ruling, published yesterday, the French judges maintained that, although there had been 'formal mistakes', they 'had no long-term repercussions on the revealing of the truth'.

Still, at least sticking nonsense about Diana on the front page means we are spared the BNP slogans or disgraceful scaremongering about Muslims. At least Diana conspiracies are harmless lying in comparison.

Express has exclusive on two women who have been dead for years

Diana is back on the front page of the Express, exactly two weeks after her last appearance there. No conspiracy theories this time, just the thoroughly outrageous 'news' that she has been 'axed from Royal history'.

Does that headline make sense? Well no, not really.

Is it true? Well no, not really.

What we have is a new official biography of the Queen Mum written by William Shawcross, which is covered in every paper today. It's 1,096 pages long and, spits the Express, only two pages are devoted to death of St Diana.

Given the Queen Mother lived to 101 that would equate to around ten pages for every year of her life. In that context, two pages on Diana's death doesn't seem that strange - especially when it has been written about so much that everyone is completely and utterly bored of it.

Everyone except the Express, that is.

And just because there are two pages on Diana's death, that does not mean she is not written about anywhere else in the book, which is what the headline states. Indeed, the article goes on to discuss other areas where St Diana is mentioned.

So how is that being 'axed'?

And why one person's biography should be about someone else is hard to fathom, but this is the Express and Diana so all common sense goes out the window.

Inevitably there is the outraged 'critic' on hand. The Express says the book was:

condemned as a whitewash yesterday

Who condemned it? A so-called 'Royal author' called Margaret Holder. It appears she was once involved with Royalty Magazine and, perhaps more tellingly, the editor of a book called Diana, the Caring Princess: In Her Own Words, which was rushed out a couple of months after Diana's death. So hardly an unbiased critic.

In fact, the Express uses the word 'critics' but fails to produce anyone other than Holder to be outraged.

Is this really front-page news or just another pitiful excuse to stick Diana on the front page?

And just because no Diana story would be complete without a nasty dig at Camilla, Express journalist Richard Palmer comes up with this:

In one letter she describes ­Wallis Simpson, the woman Edward VIII gave up his throne for, as “the lowest of the low” but there is no written record of her thoughts on her favourite grandson Charles’s on-off affair with Camilla.

See what he did there? Charming.

She's back!

Yes, St Diana of Still Dead is back on the front page of the Express after a 'top QC' fuels the conspiracy theories that the Express has always believed (thanks to Richard Desmond's friendship with Mohammed Al Fayed).

But there are two important things to remember about this 'top QC', who happens to be Michael Mansfield.

1. He represented Al Fayed during the inquest into the Paris car crash.

2. He's got an autobiography to flog.

Rather than read that garbage, look instead at the statements from the Express' NUJ Chapel over the proposed cuts of 70 jobs from the Express and Star titles.

"These jobs are burning on the bonfire of the chairman's vanity by taking Tom Bower to court," an Express NUJ chapel spokesman said. "Everyone's appalled and thinks that the Express titles could sink out of sight if these cuts go through."

And particularly damning is this:

"The chapel also demands a health and safety check of the second floor of 10 Lower Thames Street to address the problems of overcrowding; proximity of staff to noisy machinery such as photocopiers; filthy toilets and prevalence of mice," the chapel said.

Richard Desmond: a pornographer and liar who shouldn't be a newspaper owner.