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.
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 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.
‘Daily Mail’ returns to “tough over toff” in ousting Geordie Greig and bringing back “daily hater’s” favourite’s bruiser Paul Dacre
The ongoing power play at the Daily Mail’s parent company took another Succession-like twist yesterday with the return – after just a few weeks away from the company – of Paul Dacre as editor-in-chief of DMG Media, the trust’s media arm.
“Highly influentially politically” Dacre – a man with a house in Belgravia, a Sussex cattle farm, a house in the British Virgin Islands and a vast 17,000 Scottish estate – had previously sought to become chair of Ofcom, but was firmly rejected as “not acceptable.”
In a letter to The Times, of the interview process orchestrated at Ofcom, Dacre declared it was an ““infelicitous dalliance with the blob” and added:
“To anyone from the private sector, who, God forbid, has convictions, and is thinking of applying for a public appointment, I say the following: the civil service will control (and leak) everything; the process could take a year in which your life will be put on hold; and if you are possessed of an independent mind and are unassociated with the liberal/left, you will have more chance of winning the lottery than getting the job.”
Of Dacre’s reappointment in an email to staff, DMGT chairman Lord Rothermere commented:
“I am delighted to announce that Paul Dacre, who has a huge and distinguished history with this company, is being appointed editor-in-chief of DMG media.”
“Although he will not be involved in day-to-day editing, he will be taking an active role advising me and the editors.”
“Nobody has done more to make the Mail titles what they are today than Paul Dacre and I am honoured to be working with him.”
“His journalistic courage and judgment are beyond equal and editors and executives the length of Fleet Street can testify personally to how much they owe to his encouragement and counsel. DMG Media is extremely lucky to be able to draw on such a legendary talent.”
Now, as Lord Rothermere also moves to end DMGT’s 90 years as a listed company and seeks to retain the Daily Mail’s position as Britain’s biggest-selling newspaper, the return of “old bruiser” Paul Dacre marks one thing: “Geordie Greig’s nicer school of journalism” is about to be chucked out with the bathwater.
Pictured top: Paul Dacre – a man once described as a “poisoner in chief” and known for giving his readers “a daily hate.”
Geordie Greig was ousted from the ‘Daily Mail’ just days after his mate, the alleged mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell, gave an “exclusive” to its sister paper ‘The Mail on Sunday’ about her life awaiting trial for sex trafficking and the enticement of minors.Responding to critics, Dacre once remarked of “an unpleasant intellectual snobbery about the ‘Mail’ in leftish circles, for whom the word ‘suburban’ is an obscenity. They simply cannot comprehend how a paper that opposes the mindset they hold dear can be so successful and so loved by its millions of readers. Well, I’m proud that the ‘Mail’ stands up for those readers.” Previously he was most famous for headlines including: “Enemies Of The People” and “Crush The Saboteurs.”
In June 2018, Peter Oborne described Dacre as “one of the great., popular journalists, one of the great, popular editors.” He added: “He’s been one of the greatest editors of all time.” Of him, Lord Adonis countered: “He’s a [person] who feeds phobias.”
