Car enthusiast David G. Lennox explores the best way of going about buying or leasing a Range Rover
Feeling like you’re in control of the road and getting from A to B without ever having to compromise when it comes to comfort is what driving a Range Rover is all about. This iconic vehicle makes a statement, keeps you safe, and has proven to be ultra-reliable over the years. The only problem is that with so many choices out there, how do you know where to begin?
Don’t worry, we’re going to talk you through the key things you need to know before you buy in just a couple of minutes. Keep reading as we bring you up to speed faster than anyone else.
Decide how you want to use your Range Rover
The first thing is to consider how you’re going to use your new vehicle so that you can make the right choice. Family days out, the school run, trips away, exploring nature, and more could all be on your list. There’s no right or wrong answer here, only pointers that will help you to narrow down your options without delay.
Check out the engine choices that are on offer
The Range Rover offering starts with the highly efficient 2.0L PHEV and goes all the way to V8 models. It’s worth noting that diesel is generally considered to be a little better in terms of range, but the reliability of the engine configuration can vary a little across different formats. If you’re looking to make sure you take care of everything that’s on your mind, you may find it helps to speak with an experienced dealer at this point.
Choose between a new and a used Range Rover
If you are looking to save money, it’s natural to look at used Range Rovers, but as with any vehicle that has a lot of mileage on the clock, there will be common issues you need to be aware of. Most often, the issue will be that the air suspension has begun to sag and has become less responsive. In other cases, you may find reports online of owners experiencing intermittent electrical issues, especially in wet weather. But don’t let this put you off because there is now an alternative to having to choose between an expensive new model and a heavily used model.
Leasing a Range Rover is the most cost-effective solution
If you speak to experts in the industry, such as Range Rover Sport leasing specialist, they will be able to tell you why leasing is fast becoming the most popular approach in the UK. In short, when you buy a used car, you’re taking on the mileage, and when you buy a new car, you’re paying the full sticker price. Leasing is different because the leasing company retains ownership of the vehicle, and the vehicle arrives with little or no mileage. They only ask you to cover the cost of the depreciation each month, resulting in a new model for a fraction of the price.
Calculate the estimated running costs and mileage
Critics of Range Rovers will tell you that they are a little more expensive to run than small cars, but that’s not something to be overly concerned by. The solution is to budget correctly during your search so that you can drive away in the Range Rover you have always wanted in a way that aligns with your monthly finances. Estimate your mileage, the price of the fuel, road tax, and consumables like tyres and brake pads to get an idea of how much it will cost to stay on the road for 12 months.
Find a deal that includes a service and maintenance package
The beauty of going down the leasing route is that your new Range Rover won’t have any wear and tear, meaning that things will be far more predictable when it comes to servicing and repairs. Add in the fact that many leasing companies will bundle in service and maintenance packages, and you can get the helping hand you need for a highly competitive price.
Connect with an expert who will guide you through everything
Because of the proliferation of online platforms and comparison sites, there’s a misconception that you have to figure everything out yourself. This couldn’t be further from the truth, which is why connecting with an expert is always the smart approach. They will be able to help you greatly simplify your options, understand your choices, and find a solution that works for you.
Take a moment to recap the key points in this guide and then connect with a Range Rover leasing expert who will be able to ensure you get the right deal.
Car enthusiast David G. Lennox remembers the success of Britain’s bestselling ever car, the Ford Fiesta, celebrates its legacy and ponders whether it might still yet return
I doubt anyone would ever have aspired to own a Ford Fiesta if they perhaps could have afforded say an Aston Martin DB5 instead, but between 1976 and 2023, 22 million of these mini-motors were produced and sold worldwide. Their success is thus undoubtable.
“Farewell Fiesta” declared Ford as these popular with “learner drivers” (the firm declared) cars were phased out in July that year, but even by July 2014 the vehicle had become the UK’s bestselling car of all-time with over 4.1 million sold.
Produced over the years in everywhere from the United Kingdom to Germany, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and South Africa, the Fiesta was originally developed by Trevor Erskine and approved for development by Henry Ford II in 1972. It was primarily marketed as a rival to the Renault 5 rather than BMC’s Mini and became a key part of Ford’s plan to succeed in the “super-mini” segment.
Named “Fiesta” to celebrate the word meaning “party” in Spanish, this little minx of a motor also did well in the rallying world. First entered in the 1979 Monte Carlo Rally, “hot hatch” versions subsequently competed in everything from Rally Greece to The Fiesta Sporting Trophy and Rally Scotland.
Popular in all generations as a sedan delivery van, here is a 3-5 door car that crossed the boundaries from starter to courier cars that deservedly has gone down in history. It will not be remembered as a beauty in the league of say a Jaguar E-Type or Ferrari Testarossa, but the firm favourite of families that is the Ford Fiesta will forever be remembered as remarkably reliable.
Voom, voom and pip pip to the famously and fondly loved little hot hatch (even if it never quite lived up to the far punchier Peugeot 205 and the gloriously gung-ho Volkswagen Golf GTi), but as Motor1.com has asked, could this “historic name” return in 2026?
Don’t forget you can still Buycarparts for a Ford Fiesta also.
The Ford Fiesta was originally going to be called the ‘Bravo,’ but Henry Ford decided ‘Fiesta’ sounded better supposedly.Ford did end up using the ‘Bravo’ description on a limited in the early 1980s, however.
Fiesta Facts
The supermini Ford Fiesta was produced for 47 years from 1976 to 2023 by the American manufacturer Ford and its subsidiary Ford Europe.
Over 22 million examples were sold in total.
The top three selling countries for the car were the United Kingdom (3.3 million cars in total), Germany (2.3 million cars in total) and Italy (1.9 million cars in total).
Six successive versions were designed since the vehicle’s creation.
The original MK1 entry-level model was powered by a 40bhp 1.0-litre Kent engine whilst the 53bhp 1.1-litre Ghia model was the top of the range.
In October 2024, Pistonheads described the 1,497cc MK8 2013 Fiesta ST – which was the final example of that particular model – as “cheap, rapid and enormous fun.” They added: “After so long without a decent fast Fiesta, it was a welcome return… The nursery run looks set to get a whole lot more entertaining.”
The Ford Fiesta WRC became M-Sport’s top specification rally car in 2017. It produced 380bhp and 450Nm of torque.
Rally drivers who’ve driven Ford Fiestas have included Jarri-Matti Latvala, Mikko Hirvonen, Mads Østberg, Petter Solberg, Evgeny Novikov and Thierry Neuville.
In 2009, the Ford Fiesta was named ‘Car of the Year’ by the British magazine What Car?
In November 2010, the 2011 Ford Fiesta one of five finalists for Green Car Journal’s Green Car of the Year.
In October 2022, Ford’s management announced the end of the Fiesta after the model’s sales figures fell below their break-even point, down 45% in 2021.
According to Motor1.com, Ford is considering reviving the Fiesta in 2026. For them, Fernando Moreno claimed in September 2024: “Maybe there’s a glimmer of hope,” but added: “For the moment, that’s all we can tell you officially. However, based on this information, there’s been a lot of speculation of the return of the Ford Fiesta, which is only natural because it is a historic name, which would attract the attention of many potential customers.”
Matthew Steeples assesses the debate between “tyres” and “tires” and finds “attire” to form the key to the answer to a topic that has bizarrely incensed ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ types for decades
Most won’t think of the topic of tyres and get overwhelming excited, but the humble noun describing a rubber covering for a wheel is actually a word that has caused great debate over the years.
First subject of a patent as a “standard pneumatic tire” in 1847 by the Scottish inventor Robert William Thomson – who never put his invention into production – the first “practical pneumatic tire” was made in 1888 by another Scotsman in 1888. Created by a vet named John Boyd Dunlop in May Street, Belfast, this ‘tire’ was demonstrated by cyclist Willie Hume when he won a race using just such in 1889.
Subject then to yet further controversy over subsequent attempts at patents being considered invalid due to Thomson having pipped the others at the post, the matter of the spelling of tyre vs. tire changed when The Times used “tyre” instead of “tire” in 1905.
Furthering complications over this matter, in 1911, the Encyclopedia Britannica stated: “The spelling ‘tyre’ is not now accepted by the best English authorities and is unrecognised in the US,” whilst Fowler’s Modern Usage of 1926 described “there is nothing to be said for ‘tyre’ – which etymologically wrong, as well as needlessly divergent from our own [sc. British] older and the present American usage.”
Who knew it? The subject of tires (or tyres) could actually be attiring.
A timeline of tyres…
Circa 3,500 BC – The wheel is invented.
1839 – Charles Goodyear invented vulcanised rubber.
1846 – Scottish born Robert Thomson patented the vulcanised rubber pneumatic tyre. In 2020, he was inducted into the Scottish Engineering Hall of Fame having also secured patents for steam boilers, the self-filling pen and elastic wheel tyres amongst other things.
1888 – Dublin based Scot born John Dunlop patented the vulcanised rubber pneumatic tyre supposedly not knowing of the previous patent. A legal tussle ensued between him and Thomson.
1891 – Edouard and Andre Michelin Brothers invented detachable rubber tyres for bicycles.
1903 – Boston, Massachusetts born Paul Weeks Litchfield patented the tubeless tyre. He became the first CEO of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and was also the founder of the town of Litchfield, Arizona and the city of Goodyear, Arizona.
1904 – Mountable rims introduced to motor cars making it possible for motorists to change their own tyres.
1908 – Frank Sieberling invented grooved tyres that improved safety and traction.
1910 – Dr Benjamin Franklin Goodrich added carbon to tyre rubber and lengthened the life of tyres. His company, B. F. Goodrich Company, founded in 1860, is still in business today and headquartered in Akron, Ohio as Goodrich PLC.
1915 – Arthur W. Sava designed the radial tyre.
1911 – Phillip Strauss introduced what is considered the first commercially successful car tyre featuring an inflatable inner tube and a galvanised rubber outer tyre.
1937 – B. F. Goodrich invented the synthetic rubber tyre.
1947 – The Goodyear Tyre Company created the tubeless tyre.
1948 – Michelin patented the radial tyre.
1974 – Pirelli manufactured the wide radial tyre. It was standardised in 1976 and has been sold the world over ever since.
As the total payout in compensation to circa 150 known ‘victims’ of Jeffrey Epstein tops £384 million after JP Morgan Chase stummed up an astonishing £227 million settlement this week, isn’t it time that some of his clearly many associates (other than the grubby groper Ghislaine Maxwell) were finally brought to justice?
On Monday, JP Morgan Chase & Co. announced they’d pay £227 million ($290 million, €265 million or درهم1.1 billion) as a private settlement of a federal class action brought by victims of Jeffrey Epstein against the firm.
In May 2023, Deutsche Bank settled a £59 million ($75 million, €69 million or درهم275 million) lawsuit that alleged the lender should have done due diligence into evidence of sex trafficking during the period Epstein was a client. The firm did business with the Ponzi scheming paedophile from 2013 to 2018.
In August 2021, the now closed Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program announced it had awarded £98 million ($125 million, €114 million or درهم459 million) to around 150 “eligible claimants” and now with this week’s settlement, the total paid out by these three entities now stands at an absolutely astounding £384 million ($491 million, €449 million or درهم1.8 billion).
In article by Josh Russell for Courthouse News Service, published on Monday 12th June, a written statement from JP Morgan Chase & Co. is quoted. It reads:
“We all now understand that Epstein’s behaviour was monstrous, and we believe this settlement is in the best interest of all parties, especially the survivors, who suffered unimaginable abuse at the hands of this man.”
Responding Brittany Henderson of victims’s lawyer Edwards Henderson Lehrman remarked:
“A settlement of this size finally acknowledges the magnitude of the suffering of Epstein’s victims, the degree to which our system is broken, and the extent of Epstein’s influence to corrupt our system.”
In further comment from the firm, Brad Edwards added:
“We promised to bring full justice to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and this is a giant step toward fulfilling that promise. Holding a financial institution accountable for facilitating sex trafficking had never been done before now. Let’s hope it is the last time we ever need to do that.”
Whilst the total paid out by the noxious nonce Ghislaine Maxwell to her victims is unknown because of her having settled privately with some of them, at sentencing in June 2022, she was quite deservedly fined £615,000 ($750,000, €715,000 or درهم2.8million) – the maximum possible.
Elsewhere last Sunday, the DailyMail.com’s Daniel Bates shared an “exclusive” in which he revealed that the last ever person to speak to Epstein before he was ‘suicided’ was the very same person who was the only personal visitor he had during his 2019 incarceration.
Belarus native Karyna Shuliak, “believed to be in her 30s” now, visited Ghislaine Maxwell’s one-time lover on 30th July 2019 at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, New York; she then spoke to him ten days later by telephone on 9th August 2019. Epstein was found ‘hanged’ in his cell on 10th August 2019 after prison guards ever so conveniently failed to perform adequate checks on him and slept through as he supposedly committed his final – and if he did it himself very cowardly – dastardly deed to thus evade’ justice.’
Shuliak – who also very bizarrely married another female Epstein ‘associate’ named Jennifer Kalin as part of a “sham marriage” to “keep herself in the United States” in 2013 – arrived in the country first in 2009. She could, thus, shockingly have been as young as 16 at the time she first came to live with Epstein.
Bates observed:
“Epstein is said to have ‘bought’ one of his alleged co-conspirators, Nadia Marcinkova, from her parents in the former Yugoslavia, but there is no known indication that he did the same with Shuliak.”
“After her marriage to Kalin in 2013, Shuliak stayed with Epstein for the next six years despite him admitting on his MCC health questionnaire that he had more than 10 sexual partners in the previous five years.”
“Epstein is said to have paid for Shuliak’s mother’s expensive medical treatment, and may have helped fund the upscale home where her parents live in Minsk, the largely rundown capital of Belarus.”
Now, as further twists and turns emerge in this sordid saga and with financial institutions paying down such huge sums hush money, isn’t it time also that the powerful individual associates that were the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his horrendous henchwoman Ghislaine Maxwell were finally also brought to justice?
Editor’s note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
Pictured top – Jeffrey Epstein with Karyna Shuliak with her hands all over his thigh at a social gathering (left) and a mockup of his money (right).
A message from our editorial team – Thank you for reading this article. We’re more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus and the cost-of-living crisis impacts our advertisers.
Payouts & Punishment – This morning in ‘The Steeple Times,’ Matthew Steeples asked: “As latest payouts to 150 known victims of Jeffrey Epstein take sum to £384m, is it enough that just grubby groper Ghislaine Maxwell is in jail? Shouldn’t those they sex trafficked to be tried?” By 12 noon on Friday 16th June 2023, the very, very clear majority of respondents favoured the answer: “Yes; bring the lot to court.”The expose on the involvement of Minsk, Belarus born Karyna Shuliak (also spelt ‘Karina Shaliak’) with Jeffrey Epstein between 2009 and 2019 most definitely deserves delving into further. The Ponzi scheming paedophile is said to have paid for Shuliak’s education at Columbia University and likely helped her become a registered dentist in Florida, California in the British Virgin Islands also; she was also on the ‘Lolita Express’ from Paris to Teterboro airport with Epstein when it returned there for his final arrest by the FBI prior to his death.Karyna Shuliak’s “sham marriage” to “Epstein associate” Jennifer Kalin (pictured left) in 2013 also ought to be examined. How were these two able to get away this? Were powerful people connected to Jeffrey Epstein involved in enabling such?“I was her parents’ worst nightmare” – words once uttered by Jes Staley his very self. These words remain no doubt ringing in the ears of his swivel-eyed wife Debbie Nitzan Staley – as her husband continues to face the consequences of his 1,200 email trail with Jeffrey Epstein during his time involved with Jeffrey Epstein and his accounts at Barclays and JP Morgan Chase & CEO. Will he be a fall guy in this ongoing scandal?What, if anything, did President Donald Trump know about what Epstein and Maxwell were upto? Was his now wife Melania Knauss trafficked by the deviant duo? These are questions that remain unanswered.President Bill Clinton (pictured at the White House with the co-conspirator sex traffickers Epstein and Maxwell on 29th September 1993) faces further woes from the fallout also. Allegations that Clinton and Maxwell had sexual liaisons that became a full-blown affair have abounded, but remain unconfirmed by either party. Equally, Epstein and Clinton travelled together on multiple occasions and clearly shared a mutual liking for young girls also. The former POTUS was most certainly advised about the derelict and deviant actions of the nefarious former taxi driver turned financier, yet conveniently chose to ignore such and to instead accept the dirty devil’s dollar.Ghislaine Maxwell was happy to jet around the world with two known paedophiles – Jeffrey Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel – and she was happy to take as much money as she could for her ‘services’ assisting them to sexually abuse and traffic young girls and boys allegedly also even. Will she now do the decent thing and name the names of others she associated with during this period who so viciously abused the sex trafficked unfortunates she so happily passed along? The chances seem low, but with this story, the truth can turn stranger than fiction.The Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program closed its filing deadline on 25th March 2021 and has now concluded it claims process also.As she attempts to appeal her sentence, will Ghislaine Maxwell turn on other ‘monsters’ connected to this case? Though none of them have been convicted of anything to date, could Jes Staley and Prince Andrew end up the firing line? What does this mucky madam convicted sex offender have to lose, after all? Well, she could get a slice off her 20 years likely in the clink…
Names in the firing line most obvious from attention seeking Ghislaine Maxwell’s filthy ‘Little Black Book’ (if she decides to seek to minimise her sentence as she seeks an appeal)…
Ghislaine Maxwell has until later this month to cooperate and thus “name names” if she wishes to see her sentence reduced.
Those Scott Borgerson’s now ex-wife has been known to associate with – none of whom The Steeple Times is suggesting at this time as having been involved in any of her crimes, but whom she might seek revenge against for not offering her what she might consider enough public or even private support – include:
Alexander Acosta
Woody Allen
Ehud Barak
Tom Barrack
Scott Borgerson
Jean-Luc Brunel (deceased)
Naomi Campbell
President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary
Alan Dershowitz
Glenn Dubin and his wife Eva
Bernie Ecclestone
Bill Gates
Geordie Greig
Countess of Iveagh (AKA Clare Guinness, Clare Hazell)
Lord Mandelson
Marvin Minsky
George J. Mitchell
Rupert Murdoch
Elon Musk
Peter Nygård (currently in the clink in Canada and awaiting extradition to the United States of America over his own sex crimes)
Bill Richardson III
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Kevin Spacey
Jes Staley
Ken Starr
President Donald Trump and his potentially trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein wife Melania
Ivana Trump (deceased)
Chris Tucker
Harvey Weinstein
Leslie Wexner
Prince Andrew, Duke of York and his live-in ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York
Matthew Steeples asks: “Can ‘The Telegraph’ and ‘The Spectator’ survive as the Barclays are forced out and new media replaces the printed press?”
For the majority of their lives, Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay were united as one. Born within 10 minutes of one another in Hammersmith, London in October 1934, these tenacious twins rose from poverty through painting and decorating and estate agency evening to ultimately counting the toniest of London hotels, The Ritz, amongst the jewels in their far-reaching empire.
This privacy obsessed pair eventually added The Telegraph Group – which had been owned by the subsequently thrown in the clink Conrad Black – to their stable of assets in July 2004 and with it came power and privilege. They helped Margaret Thatcher secure a ritzy home in Chester Square on the Duke of Westminster’s Grosvenor Estate and even subsequently allowed her to see out her days at their best-known hotel; the milk of money and might, for them, by then, however, was beginning to turn beyond sour.
Having survived but not exactly prospered in battles with Qatari and Irish tycoons in battles over such assets as The Berkeley Hotel and The Connaught Hotel, the previously inseparable Barclay brothers fell out after a punch up on their shared yacht in the late 2010s.
Subsequently, on 25th February 2020, the High Court in London was told that Sir Frederick and his daughter Amanda had been bugged the conservatory at The Ritz Hotel and secretly recorded Sir Frederick’s sons, Alistair, Aidan and Howard. Relations further soured in the months that followed and after the death of Sir David on 10th January 2021 “after a short illness,” it was his brother whose troubles rose to the fore.
Ordered to pay his wife, the former Hiroko Kuzusaka Asada, £100 million as a divorce settlement, Sir David simply did not comply. He was dragged back to the Royal Courts of Justice subsequently in July 2022 and “sporting a pair of radiant red pants that were higher up his waist than anything even Simon Cowell would dare,” the “prison fearing” 87-year-old played the “I’m broke card” and announced: “I’ve never had as much stress as this divorce since I was a boy.”
Lady Hiroko countered: “Frederick says he cannot pay. He says he has no money. I do not believe him. It is not that he cannot pay, but that he will not pay… He’s not allowed to have a bank account because he’s not paying tax in the UK,” but this week, for him and the remaining Barclay clan members, things took a turn far worse with news that they’d lost control of their media empire.
Now, comes news that The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator have been placed on the market as part of a fire sale of Barclay assets after the Bank of Scotland appointed AlixPartners as official receivers in “a bitter row over nearly £1 billion of unpaid debts” that showed “no sign [of ever being] repaid.”
For The Guardian, Mark Sweeney and Alex Lawson yesterday reported:
“The bank… is seeking to remove Barclay family-appointed board members, replace them with independent directors, and move to auction off the Telegraph titles and The Spectator.”
“Among those being removed from the holding company, B.UK Limited, is Aidan Barclay, the chair of the newspaper group, who along with his brother, Howard, controls the family’s UK assets.”
“It is understood Bank of Scotland’s parent company, Lloyds Banking Group, which has reportedly appointed the firm Lazard and is considering hiring one other investment bank, wants to move swiftly to set up an auction for the titles.”
Previously in 2019, after refusing bids as low as just £100 million for the group – for which the brothers paid £665 million in 2004 – the decline of titles favoured mostly by an elderly audience has continued. Paywalls brought in online have seen off many and a heavy reliance on overpaid columnists such as Boris Johnson and Camilla Tominey did not help either. Profits for the group fell from £16.3 million in 2017 to just £900,000 in 2018 whilst daily readership of The Telegraph fell from 1.4 million to just 281,025 as of Decemeber.
In spite of this, The Guardian listed a number of potential suitors for the business. They numbered:
Lord Rothermere’s DMGT group – whose other titles number the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, MailOnline, Metro and i newspapers; competition issues, however, may apply.
Rupert Murdoch’s News UK group – whose other UK titles include The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times; competition issues, however, may also apply.
Axel Springer, the German publisher of Bild.
Sir Paul Marshall’s Marshall Wace hedge fund – who funded the founding of GB News.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the billionaire owner of Ineos.
Murdoch MacLennan and the Belgian group Mediahuis.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos – who bought The Washington Post in 2013.
“Members of the Qatari and Saudi royal families.
Others in the mix who might potentially like to make a bid could include:
Tory supporting billionaires such as the Reuben brothers, the JCB tycoon Lord Bamford, Hargreaves Lansdown co-founder Peter Hargreaves and Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross.
A poll conducted by The Steeple Times on Twitter today remains open. It asked “who should come next” at the Telegraph Media Group. Aside from a “someone else” option (56.2%), the majority of respondents (19.1%) favoured the idea of Lord Rothermere’s DMGT taking over.
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Who would you like to see own The Telegraph and The Spectator now the Barclay family have lost control of them?” He gave options of Lord Rothermere/Mail, Rupert Murdoch/News UK, Jeff Bezos/Nash Holding or someone else (name below). By 12 noon on the 8th June 2023, the majority of respondents favoured the final option with 22.6% opting for Lord Rothermere and 20.8% for Jeff Bezos. Just 5.7% back the idea of Rupert Murdoch seizing ownership.
Twitter reacts to our poll…
The Barclays at war… A dynasty fast dwindling…
Billionaires Sir David and Sir Frederick in happier times when they received their knighthoods together at Buckingham Palace in October 2000 “for their support of medical research.”A couple at war – Sir Frederick Barclay and his now ex-wife Lady Hiroko remain at war over over his not having paid a £100 million ($121 million, €119 million or درهم446 million) divorce settlement to her.Amongst assets contested in that divorce – and since sold – was a co-owned yacht named Lady Beatrice where the twin brothers were said to have punched one another after the breakdown of their business relationship.The Ritz was sold for around £700 million ($852 million, €833 million or درهم3.1 billion) to Qatari investors in March 2020 in spite of Sir Frederick demanding it be sold for no less than £1.3 billion ($1.6 billion, €1.5 billion or درهم5.8 billion). The controversy and the bugging that occurred on the premises was a major factor in the breakdown in the relationship of the twin brothers.
As new evidence of meetings between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein after the latter got out of the clink emerges, one is left asking: “What continued to attract ‘Mandy’ to a known billionaire sex offender?”
In January 2022, The Steeple Times pointed out: “The key ‘classic question’ Lord Mandelson now needs to answer is a paraphrasing of that put to decidedly dippy Debbie McGee by the late Caroline Ahern (in her role as the bonkers but brilliant ‘Mrs Merton’) in 1997: ‘What, first, Peter, was it that attracted you to the multi-millionaire Jeffrey Epstein?’”
This morning – pouring petrol all over the fire of speculation about the most curious links between the very well connected and openly gay Labour peer and the sexually perverted Ponzi scheming paedophile – The Mail on Sunday’s Daniel Bates shared an “exclusive” in which he revealed that aside from the previously the known meetings and telephone calls between the pair from 2005 to 2009, it is now suggested that an additional four meetings were “scheduled” for them between 2010 and 2013.
“Organised” after a time when Epstein had been in the pokey for having sex with underage girls, the ex-Labour cabinet minister, it has also been observed from diary entries, even stayed in the Lenox Hill, New York ‘Paedo Palace’ that belonged to the ‘bestie’ of Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Of this, Bates observed:
“The disgraced billionaire was jailed for 13 months in June 2008 for soliciting a minor for prostitution as part of a sweetheart plea deal.”
“After leaving jail, Epstein had to register as a sex offender and was subject to a 12-month house arrest, which expired in July 2010. Despite this Lord Mandelson, a former EU commissioner for trade, appears to have met Epstein several times.”
“Lord Mandelson declined to confirm if the meetings had taken place – but other figures who appear on the documents have said their get-togethers did go ahead.”
“At the time, the peer was out of public office but being tipped to lead the IMF or the World Trade Organization.”
“The first two meetings were listed for Epstein’s New York townhouse on March 1 and March 3, 2010, when he was still under house arrest.”
“The March 1 entry says Lord Mandelson was due at 7.30pm while Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, referred to as ‘Peter’s friend,’ was due to arrive at 1pm.”
“Mr Wegg-Prosser was Lord Mandelson’s assistant and was previously Tony Blair’s director of strategic communications. He now works at Global Counsel, Lord Mandelson’s consulting company, as a managing director.”
“An entry for May 28 2012 said: ‘** Peter Mandelson to arrive in the evening from Shelter Island WILL HE STAY AT HOUSE?**’”
“Shelter Island is an island in The Hamptons, the millionaires’ playground east of New York.”
The entry for Wednesday, May 30 reads: ‘** Peter Mandelson possibly leaves today if meetings organised for Boston, otherwise depart Thurs for DC **’”
“The final entry is for April 4, 2014 and is a dinner with Mandelson, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, investor Mort Zuckerman and Jes Staley, the former head of JP Morgan, who has been accused of abusing Epstein’s victims.”
“Previous reports have shown photos of Lord Mandelson on Epstein’s island in 2005 and at his birthday in 2006, but the diaries are the first suggestions of meetings after his prison sentence.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser confirmed his meeting with Epstein did take place. He said: ‘I had the misfortune to meet Epstein on one occasion. It was a short meeting of no consequence and thankfully was never to be repeated.’”
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
Today on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Was it right for Labour politician Peter Mandelson to continue meeting & staying with Ponzi schemer Jeffrey Epstein after the paedo got out of prison in 2009?” By 1pm on Sunday 4th June 2023, the majority of respondents favoured the answer: “No; very odd; dodgy.”Lord Mandelson – at the time the European Union Trade Commissioner – holidayed with Epstein just months before the latter’s arrest in the Caribbean. The two “middle-aged holidaymakers” were photographed on 27th December 2005 in a fashion boutique where the former was snapped trying on a white belt whilst wearing a £21,000 ($28,500, €25,200 or درهم104,800) Patek Phillipe watch – which the ‘Daily Mail’ pointedly noted to be worth “almost two months of his post-tax income.” Opposite him, his clear ‘mate’ Epstein is captured giggling.Peter Mandelson was quite happy to hang out with Jeffrey Epstein, a mutual mate of the since disgraced JP Morgan Chase & Co. banker Jes Staley, at his £10 million Paris paedo pad circa 20th January 2007 in spite of the taxi driver turned sex trafficker having been charged with soliciting a woman for prostitution in August 2006. Whilst Lord Mandelson may or may not have seen newspaper reports about the arrest of his ‘chum’ just months earlier in August 2006, one is left questioning the standard of his judgment in hanging around with this subsequently convicted nonce. Pictured in a hoodie in his dining room blowing out candles on a cake presented by a diminutive butler named Valdson Viera Cortin is supposedly tee-total Epstein whilst ‘Mandy’ – whom features in the now infamous ‘black book’ we believe belonged to Ghislaine Maxwell with 10 phone numbers attributed – gawped rather over-enthusiastically, a glass of red wine in front of him. The pair appeared in the image perfectly at ease together, in spite of the fact that various newspapers had already reported on the horrific allegations against the Brooklyn born taxi driver turned teacher turned financier.As we’ve said of entries in the address book often misattributed to Jeffrey Epstein, which we instead believe is primarily the contacts of mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell, The Right Honourable The Lord Mandelson PC is someone closer to this deviant duo than most. With TEN phone numbers for him and his partner since 1998, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, this is someone who they clearly had regular contact with.Whilst Peter Mandelson has been openly gay for many years and in a known relationship with a Brazilian, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, since 1998, it is lesser known whether Jeffrey Epstein liked ‘underage boys’ as well as ‘underage girls.’ Aside from allegations about an alleged ‘special relationship’ with his alleged benefactor, the aged Victoria’s Secret billionaire tycoon Leslie Wexner, it has been suggested the Ponzi scheming paedophile Epstein liked taking ‘little boys’ to his ‘Paedo Islands’ in the Caribbean as much as he enjoyed taking ‘little girls’ there for his own gruesome gratification. These images by an Instagram ‘artist’ going by the name @AIArtistKing have been proven fake, but rumours about what the former taxi driver turned teacher turned ‘billionaire’ did sexually with males continue to do the rounds.Oxford educated Peter Mandelson (St Catherine’s College, 1973 to 1976, pictured with Matthew Freud) and Oxford educated Ghislaine Maxwell (Balliol College, graduated 1985, pictured with Rupert Murdoch) are connected in multiple ways. Of the pension pot plundering ‘Bouncing Czech’ that was Robert Maxwell, the Labour peer once remarked: “It was very strange because you’d simultaneously want to be at Maxwell’s parties and at the same time shrink away from him. Because he was such a bully and so unpredictable. To be honest, I was frightened of his company. He had that ability to make you feel completely small and inadequate, and that just scrambled my head.”
Seven Questions Lord Mandelson Ought To Answer…
In January 2009, Peter Mandelson called Jeffrey Epstein in the Palm Beach Stockade (jail) that Mr. Epstein had inhabited after pleading guilty to procuring a minor for sexual abuse. This phone conversation was reported by UK national broadcaster Channel 4 on the Dispatches programme aired in October 2019.
During the phone call, Mandelson sought Epstein’s assistance to set up a meeting with Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The sex offender referred to Mandelson by a nickname (‘Petie’) during the conversation.
“I must say I was astonished that a British cabinet minister at that time, probably the most powerful man other than the Prime Minister, was calling Jeffrey in jail to make an appointment, to seek an appointment with a very powerful banker in New York,” a whistle-blower subsequently told Dispatches.
Accompanying an iPetition – which has been signed by nearly 2,800 people since it was posted in December 2021 – someone named Petra Malkovich asked seven questions. They were:
How can it be justified that Lord Mandelson called a convicted child abuser in jail?
In 2012, Peter Mandelson declared in a statement posted on the website of the TerraMar Project, an ostensible charity set up by Ghislaine Maxwell with financial support from Jeffrey Epstein, that he was “supporting” Ms. Maxwell’s organisation. U.S. law enforcement contend that the TerraMar Project was a fake charity slush fund for victims of Maxwell-and-Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.
How can it be justified that Lord Mandelson publicly supported Ghislaine Maxwell’s alleged ‘fake charity slush fund’ for victims of sex trafficking?
On December 27th 2005, Peter Mandelson took part in a shopping trip with Jeffrey Epstein in Saint Barthélemys (photos published by the Daily Mail on August 30th 2019).
Peter Mandelson by this time had “known [Jeffrey Epstein] for several years, having previously once visited his Caribbean island for a holiday – when neither Epstein nor any of the girls were there,” the Daily Mail reported. Mandelson’s partner was also present for the earlier visit, according to eyewitness Cathy Alexander.
How can it be justified that Lord Mandelson socialised in person and discussed business in person with Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions [refer also to the events below]?
On a date falling after August 2006 and before June 30th 2008, Lord Mandelson paid a social visit to Jeffrey Epstein at the sex trafficker’s mansion in Paris [see the photo above].
At some point during this rendezvous in Paris of unknown duration, Mandelson and Epstein celebrated a birthday together – seemingly Epstein’s (Epstein was born on January 20th, which could point to the photo having been taken in either January 2007 or January 2008).
Epstein and Mandelson were joined for this birthday celebration by an as-yet-unnamed individual described in the press as an Epstein “staff member.”
How can it be justified that Lord Mandelson socialised with Jeffrey Epstein at the sex trafficker’s Paris residence after Epstein had already been charged with a sex crime (procuring a woman for prostitution)?
In March 2011, Virginia Roberts (now Virginia Giuffre) told the Mail on Sunday that Peter Mandelson had visited Jeffrey Epstein at his New York townhouse near Central Park, attending a dinner party with the sex trafficker. “I assumed they were in business together,” she recalled.
How can it be justified that Lord Mandelson socialised and/or discussed business with Jeffrey Epstein in the same building from which Mr Epstein was operating his sex trafficking, paedophilia and blackmail operation with Ghislaine Maxwell, with minors routinely sexually assaulted on the premises by Mr Epstein?
In January 2001, Peter Mandelson joined his friend Kevin Spacey at the Old Vic theatre in London, becoming an Associate Director in or before this date (Daily Telegraph, January 5 2001). Spacey had joined the board of the Old Vic Theatre Trust 2000 just a few weeks earlier, in November 2000.
In 2002, Ghislaine Maxwell, another of Mr. Spacey’s close friends, accompanied the Hollywood star on a private tour of Buckingham Palace led by Prince Andrew. Mr. Spacey was using his tenure at the Old Vic to serially sexually assault young actors – at least 20 – with most of the allegations relating to the period up to 2009.
How can it be explained that Lord Mandelson was so closely involved with Kevin Spacey and the Old Vic during the period of widespread sexual abuse concerned, yet encountered no reports of these recurring serious sexual abuse episodes involving his friend and colleague?
In or before 2013, Peter Mandelson was brought on to the board of the Alfred Herrhausen Society of Deutsche Bank, according to a July 14 2013 report in ‘Der Spiegel’ of Germany. The report identified Anshu Jain as the executive responsible for Mandelson’s appointment. Deutsche Bank executives approved Jeffrey Epstein as a client in 2013 and then kept working with him.
“[In 2013] Deutsche Bank was aggressively expanding its U.S. wealth management business under its new co-chief executive, Anshu Jain… Deutsche Bank executives ignored repeated red flags, including suspiciously large cash withdrawals and 120 wire transfers totaling $2.65 million to women with Eastern European surnames,” the New York Times reported.
Subsequently, Mr Jain “was forced to step down from the top job at Deutsche Bank after a series of regulatory mishaps.” In 2017 Mr Jain was hired by Jeffrey Epstein’s next-door-neighbour, Howard Lutnick of Cantor Fitzgerald, whose sister, Edie Lutnick, was (in common with Mandelson) a prominent self-declared supporter of Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘TerraMar Project’ charity.
How can it be explained that Lord Mandelson was closely involved at Deutsche Bank with the rogue DB executive who was financially enabling Jeffrey Epstein in the exact same period?
Legal eagle David Lennox unravels the complexities of finding the best divorce lawyers in the UK and the USA. Discover the top law firms for wives, husbands, optimal settlements, and protective strategies
Divorce is a challenging, emotional process that becomes even more complex when legalities are added into the mix. Navigating the convoluted maze of family law requires the assistance of an experienced divorce lawyer who can guide you through each step, protecting your interests along the way.
In this article, we’ll guide you through the task of finding the best divorce lawyer for your specific circumstances, be it in the United Kingdom or the United States. We’ll highlight top-tier law firms known for their excellence in diverse aspects of divorce cases: from advocating for wives or husbands, to those known for securing optimal settlements, to firms adept at handling intricate financial matters for high-net-worth individuals.
Specialising in high-net-worth divorce cases, Stewarts Law is perfect for clients who have substantial assets to protect. With their vast experience, they excel in handling complex financial matters seamlessly.
Known for representing wives seeking fair settlements, Vardags has an impressive track record. Their dedicated team ensures each case is handled with utmost care and understanding.
Withers is renowned for its prowess in handling cross-border divorce cases involving international assets. For couples with global connections, they’re an excellent choice.
Based in the Pacific Northwest, McKinley Irvin is noted for their advocacy for husbands. Their lawyers are well-versed in the unique challenges men face in divorce cases.
A top choice for securing optimal settlements, this Los Angeles-based firm offers expert representation. Their vast experience in negotiation and litigation can make a considerable difference in your settlement.
With a focus on high-net-worth divorce cases, this New York firm provides strategic advice and representation for protecting substantial assets.
Twice divorced himself Raymond Tooth and fellow divorce law titan Fiona Shackleton in June 2013; the pair had lunched at the rather ritzy Scott’s restaurant in Mount Street, Mayfair at a time when the divorce of Nigella Lawson from Charles Saatchi was front page news. Tooth is best known for having represented Sadie Frost in her divorce from Jude Law, Cheryl Barrymore in her divorce from Michael Barrymore and Irina Abramovich in her divorce from Roman Abramovich. Baroness Shackleton’s highest profile clients have numbered The Prince of Wales in his divorce from Princess Diana, Petra Ecclestone in her divorce from James Stunt, Claire Henry in her divorce from Thierry Henry and Alyce Eichelberger in her divorce from John Cleese.Baroness Shackleton is best known for an incident during the final settlement hearing in the divorce of Heather McCartney Mills from Sir Paul McCartney where a maniac-like Mills poured a jug of water over her head; Fiona Shackleton left court that day sporting a very different hairdo to when she arrived.
Making the Right Choice
The best divorce lawyer for you depends on your unique circumstances. Consider these top ten law firms in the UK and USA:
Best for Wives:
Vardags (UK): Their empathetic, meticulous approach empowers wives to secure fair outcomes.
Laura Wasser at Wasser, Cooperman & Mandles LLP (USA): Known as the ‘Disso Queen’, Wasser has represented numerous high-profile wives.
Withers (UK): For those globe-trotting couples whose asset pool spans continents, Withers is your ticket to a well-handled international divorce.
The Law Offices of Korol & Velen (USA): Their nuanced understanding of international divorce law makes them the perfect fit for cross-border cases.
Now, let’s add some spicy masala to our otherwise sober law curry. We present to you, the illustrious ‘Divorce Wall of Fame’:
The Wall of Fame
For those interested in the glitz and glamour side of divorce law (if there is such a thing), here’s our extended ‘Wall of Fame’ showcasing high-profile celebrity divorces and the impressive settlements they’ve garnered, showing the might and prowess of their legal representatives.
Stewarts Law LLP (UK): As one of the UK’s most renowned law firms, they’ve handled a variety of high-profile cases. One notable client is multi-millionaire hedge fund manager Chris Hohn, whose divorce from wife Jamie Cooper resulted in a £337 million settlement, one of the largest in British history.
Sears Tooth Solicitors (UK): “Don’t get even, get Tooth” is often said of Raymond Tooth – whose “tenacious approach in handling cases has resulted in his being nicknamed ‘The Rottweiler’ and ‘Jaws.’ The Daily Mail has noted him as “the nation’s leading celebrity divorce lawyer” and once suggested: “He knows a thing or two about the vicissitudes of matrimony.”
Vardags (UK): Known for handling complex, high-net-worth divorces, Vardags represented the former beauty queen, Pauline Chai, in her divorce from Laura Ashley tycoon Khoo Kay Peng. This high-profile case resulted in a whopping £64 million settlement after a bitter and protracted battle.
Withers Worldwide (UK): Withers guided Guy Ritchie through his complex, cross-border divorce from Madonna. The final settlement was rumoured to be between £50 million and £60 million, one of the most sizable in the entertainment industry.
Payne Hicks Beach (UK): This prestigious firm represented the then Prince Charles in his divorce from Diana, Princess of Wales. The settlement, though kept private, was widely reported to include a lump sum of £17 million and an allowance for a private office.
McKinley Irvin Family Law (USA): One of the top-rated family law firms in the US, they have represented high-net-worth individuals across industries, although the specific details are confidential.
Wasser, Cooperman & Mandles, P.C. (USA): The star-studded clientele of Laura Wasser includes Angelina Jolie, Maria Shriver and Kim Kardashian. Wasser was instrumental in securing Jolie’s custody of her and Brad Pitt’s six children, while the monetary settlement remains undisclosed.
Diggs & Sadler (USA): This Houston-based firm represented Elin Nordegren in her divorce from Tiger Woods. The Swedish model and the golf pro’s divorce resulted in a whopping $100 million settlement for Nordegren.
Berkman Bottger Newman & Schein, LLP (USA): While keeping their client list under wraps, they have represented a significant number of high-earning individuals and have dealt with many multimillion-dollar settlements.
Blank Rome LLP (USA): Notably represented Steven Spielberg during his divorce from Amy Irving. The settlement was reportedly a cool $100 million, thanks to a prenuptial agreement that was scribbled on a napkin and later dismissed by the judge.
Pryor Cashman LLP (USA): The firm represented Rupert Murdoch in his divorce from Anna Murdoch. At the time, the settlement – estimated at a staggering $1.7 billion – was the most expensive divorce ever.
Moses & Singer LLP (USA): Arlene Dubin of this New York firm, based in the Chrysler Building, represented Michael Douglas during his divorce in 2000. Diandra Luker Douglas ultimately received an estimated $45 million.
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP (USA): The firm was hired by Juanita Jordan to represent her in her divorce from basketball legend Michael Jordan. The settlement reached an estimated $168 million, making it one of the largest public record divorce settlements in history.
The world of high-stakes celebrity divorce can be complex and contentious, but with the right legal counsel, even the most prominent stars can navigate these troubled waters. Of course, it’s not about the size of the settlement but achieving the best possible outcome for each unique situation. It just so happens that in Hollywood, that’s not always possible.
Divorce Disasters: When Things Went South…
While some celebrities walk away from divorce settlements with their pockets filled, others aren’t so fortunate. Here’s a look at some high-profile, high net worth divorces where the financial fallout was, let’s say, less than expected. Remember, this isn’t about blaming lawyers, but highlighting the complexities of these situations.
Heather Mills and Paul McCartney: After a highly publicised and acrimonious divorce battle with her ex-Beatle husband, Heather Mills ended up with a £24.3 million settlement – a large sum by any standard, but a fraction of McCartney’s estimated £800 million net worth. Fiona Shackleton, McCartney’s lawyer, successfully argued down from Mills’ initial request of £125 million.
Kevin Federline and Britney Spears: Federline reportedly received only $1 million from pop star Britney Spears in their 2007 divorce settlement, which seems relatively small given Spears’ huge success. Laura Wasser represented Spears in this case and was likely instrumental in the prenuptial agreement that protected most of her assets.
Ted Danson and Casey Coates: In the 90s, Ted Danson, famous for his role on Cheers, left his wife of 15 years, Casey Coates, for his co-star Whoopi Goldberg. This decision reportedly cost Danson $30 million – nearly half of his net worth at the time – because of a generous prenuptial agreement. In this case, the marriage dissolution didn’t go ‘wrong’ legally, but Danson’s personal decisions led to an enormous payout.
Michael Jordan and Juanita Vanoy: Michael Jordan’s first divorce from Juanita Vanoy ended in a $168 million settlement in favour of Vanoy. The basketball legend didn’t have a prenuptial agreement in place. While the settlement was fair, it could have been very different if they had had one in place.
Madonna and Guy Ritchie: Guy Ritchie walked away with a staggering sum estimated at between £50 million and £60 million from his divorce from pop icon Madonna, the biggest payout from a female celebrity to her lesser-earning spouse at the time. While Ritchie was not disadvantaged, it illustrates the importance of financial planning, even when one spouse earns significantly more than the other.
These cases underline the importance of both parties having competent legal representation and the potential perils of entering into a marriage without a clear understanding of the financial implications. It’s not about ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ a divorce, but ensuring a fair and equitable outcome for all involved.
Madonna supposedly decided her marriage to Guy Ritchie “wasn’t what I thought it was going to be” in 2008 after allegedly asking the question: “How much am I willing to sacrifice?” The couple’s ‘quickie divorce’ came about after Baroness Shackleton for Madonna “worked tirelessly to reach agreement” with Ritchie’s lawyer, Helen Ward.The 2016 ‘Brangelina Split’ went down in history as one of Hollywood’s “most messy” divorces and one that resulted in the most costly set of legal bills ever. With so many children between them, this separation was always going to be complex, but with assets including a French vineyard and estate, Chateau Miraval, divvying up proved beyond difficult for Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. In August 2022, Lizzie Edmonds of the ‘Evening Standard’ concluded: “Let’s hope both parties get what they want in the end.”
Choosing a Good Lawyer: The Art of Disclosure and the Importance of Honesty
Selecting a good lawyer is crucial, whether you’re navigating a contentious divorce or facing any legal issue. A competent attorney can mean the difference between a favourable outcome and an unfavourable one. So, how do you choose a good lawyer, and how should you present your case to them?
Choosing a Good Lawyer
Start with a focused search. Legal expertise is broad and varied, so you need an attorney who specialises in the area of law relevant to your case. In divorce proceedings, for instance, seek out a family law specialist who has a solid track record in divorce settlements.
Once you’ve shortlisted potential lawyers, research their reputation and experience. Look at online reviews and ask for references if possible. However, be aware that some reviews might be biased, so take them with a grain of salt. Additionally, make sure they have experience in the jurisdiction where your case will be handled. Different jurisdictions can have different rules and procedures.
The initial consultation is your opportunity to gauge if you’re comfortable with the attorney and their approach. Do they explain things in a way that you understand? Do they seem to have your best interests at heart? Remember, this person will be your advocate, so a positive rapport is crucial.
Cost is also a factor. Legal fees can vary greatly depending on the complexity of your case and the attorney’s reputation and experience. Be sure to ask about their billing practices upfront to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
Engaging with Your Lawyer
Now that you’ve chosen your lawyer, how do you engage with them effectively?
Full and frank disclosure is vital. Share every detail related to your case, even if you think it’s unimportant or detrimental. Lawyers need a comprehensive understanding of the situation to provide effective representation. It’s like giving a doctor all your symptoms; without complete information, they can’t diagnose or treat you effectively.
Your lawyer is bound by attorney-client privilege, meaning they’re legally obliged to keep your information confidential. So, don’t hold back. A detail you consider insignificant could be the key to your case.
The Importance of Honesty
While honesty is generally a good policy, in legal matters, it’s an absolute necessity. Lying or omitting facts can be disastrous. In court proceedings, if you’re caught in a lie, it can shatter your credibility, leading the court to view all your statements with suspicion. Even outside of court, dishonesty can lead to mistrust and conflict with your attorney, damaging a critical relationship in your case.
Honesty is particularly crucial in divorce proceedings, where financial and child custody issues can be contentious. For example, trying to hide assets can lead to severe repercussions, including financial sanctions and a potentially unfavorable ruling.
Engage in open and honest communication with your attorney. They’re there to help you navigate the legal minefield, but they can only do that effectively if they know the whole truth. Trust them to handle your information sensitively and strategically.
Remember, your lawyer is your ally in the legal process. Choosing the right one and engaging with them honestly and openly is paramount to ensuring the best possible outcome in your case.
Navigating the Attorney-Client Relationship: What to Say And What Not to Say…
Interacting with your lawyer is not as straightforward as one might think. While full disclosure is often advocated, there are indeed instances where revealing certain things to your lawyer might put them in a predicament. In this regard, divorce proceedings can be especially complicated due to their personal and emotive nature.
When Silence is Golden…
Firstly, while discussing your case, it’s essential not to fabricate facts or suggest to your lawyer that you plan to. Any indication of dishonesty, including manipulating evidence or lying in court, places your lawyer in an ethical dilemma and could lead them to withdraw from your case. The same applies to concealing assets or income during a divorce, which is not only unethical but also illegal.
In addition, discussing hypothetical illegal actions can be a tricky situation. For instance, saying: “What if I were to hide some of my assets?” implies a consideration of illegal activity. It’s always better to ask about the consequences of certain actions rather than suggesting you might engage in them.
Also, avoid criticising or talking ill of your ex-spouse unnecessarily. While it’s important to provide relevant information about their behaviour, especially if it directly affects custody or alimony decisions, engaging in character assassination can make you appear vindictive and could potentially harm your case.
What Should be Said…
On the other hand, it’s important to be transparent about your financial situation, including all assets and liabilities. Be honest about any marital misconduct like adultery, as these can impact the case. If there are any existing restraining orders or accusations of abuse, your lawyer needs to know. Discuss your expectations and goals openly – whether related to custody, division of property, or financial support.
Remember, your lawyer is on your side, but they can only do their job effectively with a clear understanding of your circumstances. That said, they are not your therapist. Avoid discussing issues that aren’t legally relevant or using meetings as a venue for venting personal frustrations.
Remember: When in doubt, it’s always better to ask your lawyer whether something is relevant or necessary to disclose. They can guide you based on their professional knowledge and experience, and the specific legal and ethical rules that apply.
The Intricacies of Attorney-Client Confidentiality
Understanding attorney-client confidentiality can also be crucial when deciding what to disclose. This privilege protects most communications between clients and their lawyers, enabling you to be candid about the facts of your case without fear that your lawyer will disclose your statements. However, there are important exceptions to this rule.
In the US, lawyers cannot assist clients in committing a crime or fraud. If a client tells a lawyer about a plan to engage in illegal activity, the lawyer may be required to disclose this information. Also, if a client admits to past illegal conduct, the attorney generally cannot disclose it unless the client consents, or the attorney believes it is necessary to prevent substantial bodily harm or death.
In the UK, the legal principle of confidentiality is similar, although there are circumstances where the lawyer may be obliged to breach confidentiality, like when the lawyer suspects the client is using their services to commit a crime or fraud. Legal professionals in the UK also have obligations under money laundering regulations, which could force them to report suspicious activities.
These nuances underscore the importance of honesty and openness while communicating with your lawyer. If you feel the need to withhold information, it’s better to discuss this instinct with your lawyer directly. They can provide guidance about what they can keep confidential and what they may need to disclose.
Think of the Children: The Human Side of Divorce
While it’s natural to focus on winning your case, it’s equally important to consider the human element, especially when children are involved. The psychological impact of a contentious divorce on young minds cannot be overstated. In the heat of the legal battle, normal, right-minded people can become obsessively focused on achieving their desired outcomes, sometimes losing sight of the collateral damage being caused.
Numerous studies have shown that it is not the divorce itself, but rather the conflict associated with it, that can cause profound emotional harm to children. They may feel caught in the middle, forced to choose sides, or even blame themselves for the breakdown of the family.
In many cases, winning at all costs can end up being a pyrrhic victory. The toll taken on your children’s emotional well-being and your ongoing relationship with them can far outweigh any material gains. It’s crucial to keep perspective during this challenging time, prioritizing the long-term emotional health and happiness of all involved over any short-term legal victories.
Remember, the best divorce lawyer isn’t always the one who fights tooth and nail for every last penny or asset. Sometimes, the most effective lawyer is the one who helps navigate the rough emotional waters of divorce while protecting both their client’s interests and the well-being of the children involved. After all, the true measure of success in any divorce should be the ability to start the next chapter of your life on a positive and healthy note.
If you decide to use any of the lawyers mentioned in our article, please mention that you found out about them through The Steeple Times. Hopefully, they might do the decent thing and, at the least, send a politely worded thank you note and please remember this; divorce is never going to be polite, but it can be done in a civil fashion.
David G. Lennox is a retired solicitor, an occasional restaurant critic for ‘The Steeple Times’ and an avid consumer of margaritas. He has been known to pen an odd word or two about the ‘Sport of Kings’ and the ‘Beautiful Game’ also. Follow him on Twitter at @davidglennox.
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party.
Disclaimer – Attorney-client privilege and confidentiality can be complex and varies depending on jurisdiction and circumstances. This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with a legal professional to understand your rights and obligations fully.
This article is meant to provide general guidance on communicating with your lawyer. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship. Every legal situation is unique, and advice must always be tailored to the specific circumstances. Therefore, for your situation, you should consult a lawyer directly.
As dopey, deranged and delusional Sarah, Duchess of York is hit with a £19 million lawsuit and is told to pay up, we again ask: “Did she ever repay the loans and other benefits she took from the known-to-her-to-be-a-paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”
Sarah, Duchess of York is not known for having intelligence; Sarah, Duchess of York, in fact, is well known for being beyond stupid, but now with news that she’s being dragged into a £19 million ($23 million, €22 million or درهم86 million) lawsuit alongside Lord Grade comes proof that this prattling pillock – who is about to launch a new podcast with the uninspired name Tea Talks with the Duchess and Sarah – is nothing but beyond the pale.
Now, once again as the wastrel wench formerly known as Sarah Ferguson (AKA the ‘Duchess of Dork,’ the ‘Duchess of Deranged’ and ‘Feckless Fergie’ amongst other things) faces questions of “unexplained” loans of around £500,000 ($617,000, €576,000 or درهم2.3 million) being “made out to her businesses,” according to the Daily Mail’s Dominique Hines, it is once again time to ask this noxious nitwit a very important question.
According to Hines, the delusional duchess and Lord Grade “are among the directors [of the media investment company Gate Ventures] set to face the wrath of liquidators determined to recoup the sum [owed].”
Going further, Hines added: “[The Sunday Times reported yesterday] that the loan [to ‘Fergie’] has not been repaid and that her recent offer of repayment was so low that it was rejected.”
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
Today, as it's revealed that Sarah, Duchess of York has been hit with £19m lawsuit alongside Lord Grade, is it time that delusional duchess revealed whether she ever repaid loans and other benefits taken from known-to-her-to-be-a-paedophile Jeffrey Epstein? (Article to follow)
Today on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Today, as it’s revealed that Sarah, Duchess of York has been hit with £19m lawsuit alongside Lord Grade, is it time that delusional duchess revealed whether she ever repaid loans and other benefits taken from known-to-her-to-be-a-paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?” By 11:30am on Monday 29th May 2023, the majority of respondents favoured the answer: “Yes; but she won’t, filth.”
The Weird Words of “Greedy” and “Needy” Freeloader Wannabe Sherlock Holmes Sarah, Duchess of York… They Get Weirder By The Week (And Soon We’ll Have A Book Of Them)…
Given the live-in ex-wife at Royal Lodge, Windsor of supposedly skint ‘Randy Andy’ – a non-sweating nuisance who got his long-suffering relatives to pay a supposed sum of circa £12 million to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a woman he has previously claimed to have met – is in on a world tour to prattle on to anyone who pays to listen, perhaps she should be reminded of her own weird and even weirder warblings. They number:
Of sex, herself and goats: “One of the worst headlines said 82% [of the population] would rather sleep with a goat than Fergie. It’s never left me.”
Of her writing novels and her style: “Sherlock Holmes meets Peaky Blinders.”
Of the royal family: “They tried to put the little redhead in a cage.”
Of her own family: “I do believe in family unity. I think forgiveness is key.”
Of the Duke of York: “A good man… In 1986, I married a very good man. Zip.”
Of whether she might remarry Prince Andrew: “Oh bless your heart, no. I think we’re great as we are.”
Of supporting her disgraced ex-husband financially: “I will always be there [for Prince Andrew].”
“When Andrew went through a hard time, I used to be able to throw it to ‘The Boss.’”
“Since he stepped back [from royal duties] he doesn’t actually take taxpayers’ money and I’m in a position where I can support him and the rest of the family through my work. And I’m really pleased and proud to do that.”
“All I will say is that for many years now – it started with Budgie the Little Helicopter – I’ve really pushed to look after my girls and to contribute to the York family life.”
Of where she and the Duke of York will end up living in the future: “Honestly, I operate from living in the present. You never get complacent and it makes for a better day because you never get disappointed, then. You look at life and you go, we can adapt, we can be flexible.”
Of whether she might remarry someone else: “I think I’ve got too much baggage. I look at today and if suddenly I find love again, well, that’s another bonus, isn’t it?”
Of her daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie: “Exceptional… I love my girlies, I’m so proud of them. They are exceptional children… If mum’s OK, they’re OK.”
“My daughters come first in my life, they always have. Because I lost my mum so early, I’m subconsciously very present with them. When I brought them up, I always left my problems at the door. Your problem is not their problem – it’s not their fault. We laugh together a lot. We are just very close.”
Of her grandchildren: “I’m ‘Super Gran’… When my grandchildren see me, they immediately laugh because they know I’m going to be up to something, up to no good somewhere.”
“Every time I think about about co-parenting and co-grandparenting and about divorce, marriage and all these different things, I still come back to the principle that the sun will come up tomorrow, and be grateful, just get on with it.”
Of the late Queen Elizabeth II: “For me, she was more a mother than my own mother. Aren’t I the luckiest person alive to have had that great honour? When I was with her, I used to say: ‘I can’t believe it. People wait and put on their best dress to have an audience with you, and I’m wandering around the garden in wellies!’”
“For the whole nation, for the world. Steadfast, consistent, iconic. [She had an] extraordinary ability to put someone at ease. I still now think it was such an honour [to have known her].”
“During the last three years, her poor son [was] going through such a tumultuous time… And I think HM was very relieved I could help her with him, so we became even closer, then.”
“I’m so lucky. All my life, I was lucky enough to know ‘The Boss,’ HM. Like the nation and the world, she was always there. It was like having a hand at your back. It just made you always strive for being better and trying to be better, learning from her, whenever you were with her just taking everything she said as a memory. She was such an incredible legend for us all.”
Of the late Queen’s corgis: “They’re very good boys, they’re very gentle. I think they knew that they weren’t to jump up and be naughty. They used to sit and watch the racing with her. And when you give them a biscuit, they don’t snatch. They’re very special, they’re national treasures.”
“They really make me laugh and the follow me around. Sometimes I break a little ‘biccie’ – a digestive biscuit – in the same way the Queen broke it into little pieces, and give it to them and tell them to remember their boss.”
Of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex: “I have been judged all my life, and I have no judgment on the Sussexes.”
“It must be hard for Meghan and can I relate to her. I believe she is modern and fabulous. She was famous before. She is great. Why can’t Meghan be great? Why can’t she be celebrated? I have been in Meghan’s shoes, and I still am. There’s always a twist of negativity and it just gets so sad and tiring… I abhor bullying and I feel desperately sorry for the pain they must be going through.”
“I believe very strongly that I have absolutely no judgment on any other person’s life, and I look at how much she [Meghan] loves him [Harry] and loves the children and gives him a love that he’s never had before. That’s how I look at it… The most important thing is, Diana would be so very proud of Archie and Lili. She would have adored every moment of it.”
Of King Charles III: “It’s incredible what he’s done for the environment. He was a trailblazer and many years ago, everybody said: ‘What’s he talking about?’ But he’s right. I’m a great believer and supporter of him, as I am of the Queen Consort.”
Of herself and her life: “I have been in the gutter.”
“I’m a brilliant mother. The best mother.”
“I don’t believe that any single person has the right to judge another person. I’m not in a position myself to make any judgments.”
“I’m very steadfast and stoic… I won’t let anyone down. I’m very loyal.”
Being rather wishy-washy: “The most important thing is that the sun will come up tomorrow and the day will move on.”
Of food, family and dining: “As long as it is hot, wet and goes down the right way, it’s fine with me.”
“With every smell, I smell food. With every sight, I see food. I can almost hear food. I want to spade the whole lot through my mouth at Mach 2. Basta!”
“We all sit round the table and eat together. Andrew and I believe in total parent unity. We’re best friends.”
On the coronation of King Charles III: “Well I’ve decided the best thing about British around a coronation – although I’ve never been to one – I think we should, I should set up a tea room at the bottom of the drive with bunting and cakes.”
“Never presume, never assume. I don’t know. But I’ll be there at the end of the drive with a cup of tea if I’m not there.”
Of wanting to be a television star: “I would quite like to go on Dancing With The Stars. I would like somebody to teach me to tango. I do know the show and my children would be so proud of me.”
On Americans: “I divorced, went to America, wrote a book, went on Oprah and did 12 years as the longest running spokesperson of Weight Watchers. I looked to America to support me and to help me and I really can’t thank the American people enough for what they gave me and what they did for me.”
Of when she decided she wanted to bag a royal: “I met [Prince Andrew] when I was 12, and I said: ‘I’m going to marry him.’”
Of marriage, divorce and work: “I left my marriage knowing I’d have to work. I have.”
“I didn’t want a divorce, but had to because of circumstance.”
“I wish we’d never got divorced. He and I both wish we’d never divorced, but we did. I wish I could go back and be the bride again, but I can’t.”
Of her many, many mistakes: “I felt that I ostracised myself by my behaviour, by the past, by living with all the regrets of my mistakes, that I sort of wore a hair shirt and beat myself up most of the day thinking and regretting why did I make such a mistake. Why have I made so many mistakes?”
“You look at the devil in the face, which you do. Then you forgive, and you say: ‘OK, I’ve made almost a mistake that will never be forgotten,’ and forgive.”
“I think the obstacles are the way, as opposed to in the way. I feel very strongly that I completely and utterly own my very naïve self and made endless different wrong decisions, whatever they may be, but in the end, it’s got me to today as an author. I’m a person in my own right, I’m Sarah.”
“I was so out of control with desperation… I was looking for quick fixes in the places I wouldn’t normally look… I’ve been a huge overtrusting, idiotic, stupid woman that went to look for the perfect situation, and that’s all I can say really.”
“I’ve done the work to get to myself. I’ve done masses of mental therapy. I probably reached to the wrong places and the wrong people and made, as you call it, mistakes. I don’t call them mistakes. I call them enormous learning curves.”
That JPMorgan Chase & Co. executive Mary Callahan Erdoes excused Jeffrey Epstein being a paedophile with “oh boy!” and “I don’t know what to believe” emails is proof of how rotten-to-the-core that finance house truly is
On Friday, Inside Edition shared news that they’d obtained Jeffrey Epstein’s appointment schedules from his “longtime assistant” Lesley Groff and aside from mentioning the likes of the former treasury secretary Larry Summers and his wife Lisa meeting with the since croaked paedophile more than ten times between 2012 and 2016, the documents also mentioned the likes of Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby, the Crown Princess of Norway, and Rupert Murdoch’s now ex-wife Wedni Deng Murdoch.
As ever, the rabbit warren that is the story of Epstein and his puppet mistress Ghislaine Maxwell is a gift that keeps on giving and elsewhere Friday, The Washington Post’s Jacob Bogage and Aaron Gregg published a fascinating report containing the deposition from J. P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s chief executive of its asset and wealth management unit Mary Callahan Erdoes about her dealings with her now deceased client.
In it, they revealed:
“When the banker learned a court had affirmed Jeffrey Epstein’s status as a sex offender likely to harm more victims, she had a terse response.”
“‘Oh boy,’ Mary Erdoes wrote in a 2011 email to a fellow executive at JPMorgan Chase, where Epstein was a client for 15 years.”
“It was at least the sixth time Erdoes, who leads the bank’s asset and wealth management division, had been alerted to Epstein’s criminal or civil legal trouble for sex crimes. She had also been informed as early as 2006 that JPMorgan flagged suspicious activity on his accounts.”
“Erdoes’s statements in a nearly nine-hour deposition conducted in March shed new light on the actions of JPMorgan’s highest-ranking officials while Epstein’s conduct faced legal and public scrutiny.”
“The Washington Post obtained the transcript of the deposition, much of which has been unreported until now. This report is based on Erdoes’s answers in that deposition, as well as emails and other internal bank documents that were read into the record during the deposition or introduced as evidence in other court filings.”
“The deposition transcript shows Erdoes said she had been made aware of Epstein’s convictions for sexual offenses, his status as a high-risk sex offender, and public allegations of abuse of minors and human trafficking. But she said she didn’t think it was her responsibility to remove him as a client, launch an inquiry into his accounts or refer them to compliance officials. JPMorgan has a separate process for dealing with client-related legal issues, she said”
“Jes Staley, Erdoes’s supervisor and one of Epstein’s close friends, did investigate the allegations against Epstein by asking the financier about them, according to records read during the deposition.”
“JPMorgan in a statement said it was ‘unfair for The Post to draw these kinds of conclusions without context for the relevant processes at JPMorgan, the tens of millions of clients, and the many professionals involved.’”
“On more than 100 occasions during the deposition, Erdoes said she did not recall details of her role helping supervise Epstein’s accounts, some of which date back two decades. She described Epstein’s crimes as “allegations” even though he pleaded guilty to procuring a child prostitute in 2008 and was declared a Level 3 sex offender – the most serious designation – by a New York state appeals court in 2011.”
“Asked in the March 15 deposition whether she believed Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019, was engaged in sex trafficking, Erdoes said, ‘I don’t know what to believe.’”
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Was J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. executive Mary Callahan Erdoes right to excuse Jeffrey Epstein being confirmed as a paedophile in emails reading ‘I don’t know what to believe’ and ‘oh boy!’? By 11:30am on Sunday 28th May 2023, the very, very clear majority of respondents favoured the answer: “No; cares only about £££.”Mary Callahan Erdoes is clearly a woman who failed to take seriously the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein. Here is a woman who DID NOTHING about a man with £98 million ($121 million, €113 million or درهم444 million) in his accounts with J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. in 2008 and whom also “sought to bring the bank more business, according to legal filings, and profit from fees associated with the work” according to ‘The Washington Post.’Jes Staley, at the time a senior JP Morgan executive (left), with former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers and Jeffrey Epstein in 2011 at the latter’s Lenox Hill, New York mansion.J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. chief executive officer Jamie Dimon provided a formal statement in two lawsuits relating to his firm’s relationship with the now deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein last week. Of such, yesterday, the BBC reported: “The nearly 15-year relationship extended from 1998 to 2013, five years after the financier pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution. Prosecutors allege the bank ignored warning signs about their lucrative client and continued profiting off him. Both Mr Dimon and his employer have denied any wrongdoing and liability. JP Morgan said on Friday evening that Mr Dimon stated he had never met or communicated with Epstein and did not recall discussing Epstein’s accounts with others at the bank. Mr Dimon’s statement was taken in a private legal meeting known as a deposition at the bank’s New York headquarters earlier in the day.”“I was her parents’ worst nightmare” – words said by James Staley his very self – will be ringing in the ears of swivel-eyed Debbie Nitzan Staley in the wake of her husband’s former company Barclays’s decision to not (yet) payout £22 million the couple were expecting. No doubt that’ll mean one less holiday for her and her two daughters on their 90-foot long gin palace ‘Bequia’ in the coming years.
As miserable old crone 92-year-old billionaire Bernie Ecclestone faces another court hearing, more cheerful old crone 92-year-old billionaire Rupert Murdoch is forced into a payout reports Matthew Steeples
Today hasn’t been a good day for two creosoted, verging on crocodile-like skinned 92-year-old billionaires. Both Bernie Ecclestone and Rupert Murdoch are again roasting on the coals.
Arriving in a frankly common and more suitable for a desert in Dubai white coloured Range Rover, haggard Ecclestone – whom I am reliably told was supposedly nicknamed ‘The Grinch’ by those once very close to him – clambered out after his latest wife, Fabiana Flosi, wandered off far ahead. Curiously, relations between the two looked rather similar to those, in fact, of Donald and Melania Trump; distant and anything but dissolute.
Meanwhile elsewhere, it was announced this very same day that Rupert Murdoch – freshly free of his very, very, very short-lived engagement to a clearly beyond wacky woman named Ann Lesley Smith – has agreed to a £635 million ($787.5 million, €720.5 million or درهم2.8 billion) settlement with voting equipment firm Dominion over lies over the 2020 U.S. elections. Pennies to him in real terms, but facing further suits of even more substantial natures this opposingly brilliant but much maligned billionaire seems to also have a lot of other woes on the way.
For Murdoch, this payment may have been a relative ‘walk in the park, but I’d argue Sky’s hit series Succession has nothing on these two old crones – Roy Logan eat your heart out; the ‘fall years’ for these two have finally arrived.
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
92-year-old Bernie Ecclestone arriving at court this morning; the bungling buffoon and apologist for the evil tyrant President Vladimir Putin looked in worse condition than even at his last appearance back in January 2023.92-year-old Bernie Ecclestone’s third wife and latest ‘baby mama’ Fabiana Flosi-Ecclestone arriving at court this morning; the current Mrs Ecclestone curiously chose the name ‘Ace’ for her child – one is left wondering if the billionaire former F1 chief will be hoping for an ace in the pack when he faces his trial for allegedly orchestrating a £400 million fraud against His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) on the 15th November 2023.
BOG OFF BERNIE! BERNIE ECCLESTONE’S WORST MOMENTS
A poisonous penny-pinching dwarf and well-known as a “coffin dodger,” Bernie Ecclestone – a bestie of the man who paid £12 million to a woman he claims never to have met Prince Andrew – couldn’t give a damn about anything other than money. He’ll mouth off in support of anyone who might help him get just a little bit more, but really should just be told to bog off!
On President Vladimir Putin:
“[He] should be running Europe… He should be in Brussels running Europe… We should get rid of Brussels and he should just be in charge.”
“Honestly, I think the guy who be running Europe, impressed me more than anything, is Mr Putin because he’s a guy that says he’s going to do something and does it… [He’s] a first-class person.”
“He does what he says he’s gonna do, he gets the job done. I mean people don’t understand exactly what he wants to do… He wants to put Russia back to what it was.”
“I was with [Putin] after the [2014 Sochi Winter] Olympics on the top of the bloody mountain… We had a meeting, just the two of us, and we came out and we were walking along and people were coming up to him asking for an autograph… That’s what people think of him.”
“If someone had a machine gun and was prepared to shoot Putin, I would stand in front of him because he’s a good guy. He’s never done anything that isn’t doing good things for people.”
On President Putin’s intolerance to gay people in Russia:
“When I was at school, if you did something wrong, the teacher used to say: ‘Go and get the punishment book and the cane. Go to your headmistress and get a few whacks or something.’ That’s what he does.”
On President Donald Trump:
“I think he’d be fantastic [as President of the United States of America]. I’m sure he’s much more flexible than most of them. If he’s made a mistake, he’s more likely to say: ‘It was a good idea at the time.’”
“He has done a lot of good things for the world.”
On Adolf Hitler:
“Apart from the fact that Hitler got taken away and persuaded to do things that I have no idea whether he wanted to do or not, he was in the way that he could command a lot of people, able to get things done… He wasn’t a dictator.”
On Jewish people:
“They have a lot of influence everywhere.”
On black people:
“In a lot of cases, black people are more racist than what white people are.”
Of democracy in the United Kingdom:
“If you have a look at a democracy it hasn’t done a lot of good for many countries – including this one.”
Of his crackpot suggestion that the now late Max Mosley, son of the late Fascist Oswald Mosley, might have been Prime Minister of Great Britain:
“[He would have done] a super job… I don’t think his background would [have been] a problem.”
On Brexit:
“I’m 100% an outer.”
On his wealth:
“I’ve got enough I can do with my money.”
On following the rules:
“I never stopped breaking the rules.”
Asked if immigrants had made a contribution to the UK:
“They have not.”
On who is worth speaking to:
“Anyone who doesn’t speak English isn’t worth speaking to… I’d rather get to the 70-year-old guy who has a lot of cash.”
On journalists:
“I can’t remember a single occasion when I have been kind to a journalist.”
On social media:
“I think the change that is currently taking place is very short-lived, as these social media people are starting to think it is not as good as they thought.”
On waiters and prostitutes:
“Waiters are like hookers, never around when you want them.”
On women:
“You know, I’ve got one of those wonderful ideas… Women should be all dressed in white like all the other domestic appliances.”
“What I would really like to see happen is to find the right girl, perhaps a black girl with super looks, preferably Jewish or Muslim, who speaks Spanish.”
On women participating in Formula 1:
“I don’t know whether a woman would physically be able to drive an F1 car quickly, and they wouldn’t be taken seriously.”
On Lewis Hamilton:
“I don’t find him particularly engaging… He’s not particularly you would say black.”
On the corrupt criminal and disgraced banker Gerhard Gribkowsky:
“Dear old Gribkowsky… I don’t blame him because I would have probably done the same if I could have done it. He found the weak spot, found some leverage and used it. You can’t blame somebody for doing that.”
On the individuals who kidnapped his mother-in-law:
“If I get upset, how could it help?”
On his business career and his family’s Bambino Holdings offshore trust:
“I’ve got the highest position there is. So high that when I look down, I can’t see anything.”
“Maybe the most serious thing I regret was giving my shares to my ex [Slavica Radić], because when she them all in a trust for her and the kids, I lost control.”
On Friday 20th January 2023, Bernard Ecclestone turned up at The Crown Court at Southwark for a case management hearing along with his third wife Fabiana and some other bloke. He gave a thumbs up to waiting photographers in a fashion akin to the antics of Max Clifford in that very same spot back in 2014 and appeared to treat the whole episode as a bit of a jolly. His actually frankly rather serious £400 million trial is scheduled for the 15th November 2023 and he stands accused of falsely claiming he had only set up a single trust for his daughters in an alleged failure to declare overseas assets to the taxman.Arriving at Westminster Magistrates’ Court last August, the 91-year-old – who curiously gave his address as being in Rutland Gate, Knightsbridge rather than Chelsea Square, Chelsea – looked like he hadn’t slept in decades or even bothered to have combed or washed his hair. The grey matter resembled, in fact, a decrepit bird’s nest.In February 2020, ‘The Steeple Times’ reported on croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s chum (and his wife Sarah, Duchess of York’s financial sponsor) Prince Andrew having Bernie Ecclestone over to Royal Lodge, Windsor to celebrate his birthday. Whether this man “with qualities that would make Leona Helmsley look generous” brought Sloppy Giuseppes from Pizza Express (Woking branch) for the bash remains still unknown.At the 31st birthday party hosted for Naomi Campbell by her then lover Flavio Briatore on 19th May 2001 in St Tropez, France, Bernie Ecclestone (pictured top right) got to hang out on a gin palace with not only the since convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell but also the woman Prince Andrew paid £12 million to in spite of having never met – Virginia Roberts (now known as Virginia Giuffre). The now former F1 boss and alleged fraudster featured in the infamous address book credited to Epstein but most likely was actually a contact of the mucky madam Maxwell primarily.The 91-year-old father of four and son of a Suffolk fisherman has previously been quite rightly deservedly slammed for his support for the world’s worst living leader, President Vladimir Putin. Calling such a tyrant “a good guy” and someone he’d “take a bullet for” about sums this nasty little piece of toerag up for what he is – an utter braindead berk.
