The latest pathetic excuses not apologies offered by ITV presenters Ferne McCann and Phillip Schofield prove this pointless pair of pillocks to be utter plonkers and total disgraces
Queue jumping as the Queen lay in-state, it seems, was perfectly excusable to ITV This Morning presenter Phillip Schofield; insulting the sixteen victims of the acid chucking father of her child, it seems, was perfectly excusable to sometime ITV This Morning presenter Ferne McCann.
“Have you got nothing better to do with your time? … Why should I apologise?” raged rabid Schofield yesterday when approached outside his home by a reporter from GB News when asked if he thought he thought he was unfairly targeted in what became known as the ‘Queuegate’ scandal. The notoriously nasty flogger of noxious boxed ‘plughole plonk’ then continued: “I think [Holly Willoughby and I] were unfairly targeted… You’re a bit late with that story, mate.” The sometime ‘friend’ of Matthew McGreevy then slammed his door; he no doubt then went and had a little weep.
Elsewhere yesterday, fellow ITV presenter Ferne McCann – a wicked-wastrel-woman who disgracefully flogged lip plumping primer beauty products online on the very day in December 2018 when the father of her child, Arthur Collins, was sentenced for throwing acid over sixteen innocent people – took to Instagram to issue a wishy-washy set of words about voice notes in which she shockingly termed scarred-for-life Sophie Hall, a victim of her ex-shagging partner, a “silly b*tch.”
Instead of owning and genuinely offering up a heartfelt apology, yesterday (and offering to put right her wrongs also), McCann dug deeper into the hole that she and only she has created. On Instagram, this dimwitted dunce rambled:
“I am aware that people will have a number of questions about the voice messages being put into the public domain and purportedly being sent by me. I feel I have no choice but to address these (to the extent that I can as there are restrictions on me which I explain below).”
“Most importantly I want to apologise to all the victims of Arthur Collins abhorrent actions in 2017 that they have to relive that night and the pain that followed because this matter is again in the public domain.”
‘In particular I want to apologise to Sophie Hall. I do not believe her to be ugly or stupid. She has been brave beyond belief.”
“Arthur Collins’ crimes created genuine victims so I am not trying to portray myself as one. I am unable to say much because there are important and significant legal proceedings that prevent me from setting the record straight at this stage.”
“What I can say is that the voice messages that are being released are manipulated; edited and taken entirely out of context.”
“Even so, I will have said things that are untrue and I did not believe – but I did so to protect my family and myself from serious harm and in the face of significant threats.”
Effectively an admission that she DID say these things – though she claims she didn’t mean them and shouldn’t have said them – here is proof why ITV must not put this victim shaming cretin back on our screens.
Warbling wazzock Ferne McCann, 32, is of mind stir-fried and moral compass warped. She is not fit to lecture others on how to bring up children; she’s beyond childish herself. Blubbing crybaby Philip Schofield, 60, on the other hand, is older and should be wiser and should know better. He clearly isn’t and just like his over Botoxed protégé, it’s simply time to pension off the nation’s ultimate plonker. Next!
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party.
'I think we were [unfairly targeted]'
Phillip Schofield refuses to apologise over 'queuegate' accusations that he skipped the queue to see the late Queen lying-in-state. pic.twitter.com/wT4Sf61Sq0
ITV1’s ‘This Morning’ co-host Phillip Schofield cringed and looked as if he was about to snap when approached outside his West London home by GB News presenter Ben Leo yesterday. Here is a mouse-not-a-man who wrongly assumes that he’s some kind of national treasure worthy of not a jot of criticism.Instead of skipping queues and upsetting the nation in the process, the all-round-angry man and ‘This Morning’ host and ex-sidekick of Gordon the Gopher should quit his ITV job and focus on improving his deservedly slammed boxed wines (right). He thought his red “perfect with olives” whilst the public decided it “better poured down the plughole.” Alternatively, he could put some effort into ‘making up’ with his missing from our screens for quite some time now former close friend, Matthew McGreevy.When she thought she could rake in some wonga from ‘OK!’ feckless fool Ferne McCann happily posed for snaps with the since convicted criminal Arthur Collins. This nasty piece of toerag, known best now for her vicious tongue and twisted moral compass, deserves only one thing – permanent cancellation.The only thing on the mind of the now former ‘The Only Way Is Essex’ participant is clearly fame and money. She doesn’t care how she gets it and she doesn’t care who gets hurt along the way. Here is a wazzock woman who clearly couldn’t give a jot about what damage was done to the 16 victims her once-to-be-hubby hurled acid all over. There should be no excuses made for her vile conduct.Courageous victim Sophie Hall has shown resilience and responded to the vicious remarks made about her by stating: “Ferne herself has said before that she struggles with her own appearance. So, to be commenting on how someone else looks –regardless if it was never meant to be heard – is wrong. This is me fighting back and remaining strong. I want them to know we should be proud of our scars because they are a reminder of how strong we are. I would ask Ferne: ‘What have I ever done to you? Why are you targeting me, when all I’ve been trying to do is make a positive out of a terrible and traumatic experience that I sincerely hope no one ever has to go through in their lifetime?’ I wanted to have a positive impact and perhaps inspire people and not only build my confidence, but help other victims out there that may be having a tough time and to show that you can still go on and achieve fantastic things. There’s so much to overcome and I’ve found there’s lots of rounds in this competition that you have to take part in and it has helped me rebuild different parts of my life – it’s helped me massively.” She is to be saluted whilst the ITV ‘This Morning’ presenter should be slammed.
WORLD EXCLUSIVE – Samantha Markle shares her thoughts on Prince Harry’s tittle-tattling tome ‘Spare’ with ‘The Steeple Times’; she slams it as likely “cold, malicious and reckless” and wishes he’d “spare us all the hypocritical pity party”
In comments exclusively to The Steeple Times via email, Ms. Markle observed:
“With regard to the book Spare, I have [like the rest of the planet, obviously] not read it [yet], but the idea that there was an alleged request or appeal for money between Harry and King Charles and when King Charles turned him down, reportedly he said he would go ahead with the book seems like extortion on the surface and blackmail.”
“We can only hope that the book will not be slanderous and scandalous, but after everything that has transpired it seems like such a cold, malicious and reckless disregard for his own family especially the father who has given him everything. Just like my father gave my sister everything, they seem to be two peas in a pod where using and disposing of others, when they don’t get their way is concerned. Some people are not capable of empathy remorse shame or gratitude.”
“In all of the pictures that were salient in the media throughout his life, Harry never seemed to be unhappy as a member of the royal family so [his] statement now does not intersect with visible evidence of a lifespan.”
“Many around the world have noticed the same thing. it almost seems like grasping for straws as a coping strategy for the discomfort of being in denial.”
“More than anything what is glaring is that while he posits the idea of mental health as being so important, neither he nor my sister seem to have any regard for the mental health of their families and others whom they have stepped on. They preach about peoples’ voices needing to be heard but they don’t care about the voices of those whom they have knowingly wronged. Their hypocrisy has been noted globally.”
“Prince William has honoured the legacy of his mother beautifully and carried on with integrity and loyalty. [He understands the concept of] role models [and the] importance of family. Prince Harry, on the other hand, seems to use the victim card as a crutch for accountability and integrity in every area of his life, in my opinion. I like the title of the book only in that maybe he should ‘spare’ us all the hypocritical pity party.”
Turning to her thoughts on the reaction to her interview yesterday with The Steeple Times, Ms. Markle concluded:
“This was an excellent article and I’m so grateful to you for your objective, honest overview.”
“Everyone else was afraid to tell the truth and an attorney in London told me that there was an entrenched media agenda against me. PRs were being paid to write nasty articles about me and everytime I would speak the truth, it never got printed.”
Pictured top – Samantha Markle (left); The Duke of Sussex’s book has already been embarrassingly reduced to the bargain basement bin at Waterstones – where it is priced at £14 down from £28 (centre); the mendacious menace, the Duchess of Sussex, will no doubt be less than amused to learn of the bookseller’s move and of her sibling’s latest comments.
With his tackily titled book already in the half-price bargain basement bin, the Duke of Sussex will likely to turn to the rotten weasel PR peddler Omid Scobie to help him flog a few extra copies.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no doubt also engage the vile trashbag troll Christopher Bouzy also. He was quite rightly called out by Samantha Markle yesterday and currently, very deservedly, also has legal troubles of his own.Another oddity the pair could turn to for assistance in PR-ing the pointless, pitiful book is Markus Anderson. A PR party or two at Soho House, perhaps?On Twitter, the half-sibling of the Duchess of Sussex slammed her and stated: “My grandmother would roll over in her grave to see what my sister has done to this family and I think it disgraces the family name. My dad worked very hard at his craft and did a sensational job, to give us the life that we had. #Markle.”Going further, Samantha Markle modestly added: “And like any family, we are not perfect, but we are far from what the media have portrayed us as and did not deserve that. It’s OK, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger and we all know it gives us a great sense of humour!”
WORLD EXCLUSIVE – ‘The Steeple Times’ interviews Samantha Markle – the sensible sister of the mendacious meddler formerly known as Meghan Markle – as she returns to Twitter courtesy of Elon Musk’s reopening of the social media network
Samantha Markle, like her father, did not choose the glare of public spotlight. Forced into it courtesy of her heartless half-sister ‘bagging’ Prince Harry in 2019 and then treated like a pariah by this mendacious meddling actress turned international nuisance, here is a lady who, like many, got quite disgracefully deplatformed by the woke wazzocks who formerly controlled Twitter.
Now, courtesy of Elon Musk taking ownership in the last week, the elder sibling of the Duchess of Sussex has been quite justifiably allowed to return to the medium.
“Thank you so much Matthew! My dad is making good strides daily and that’s a blessing! Thank you for asking!”
“I am really happy to be on Twitter after being unjustly targeted and shut down by bots and trolls falsely reporting my account. Prior to that I was hacked out of several accounts, so they tried to spin information to look like I was circumventing.”
“Chris Bouzy and Twitter trolls bragged and took credit for getting me shut down.”
“The only time I was legitimately restricted on Twitter was for mentioning Ivermectin because I shared a medical article about it. Medical articles are not disinformation.”
“I’m glad that Elon musk is going to save free speech and [turn] Twitter into a greater platform than it has ever been. We can all have our opinions, and disagree. Elon Musk wants to make it fair for both the right and the left equally. Differing opinions and controversy make people think and grow.”
“If we all agreed, we would never grow. The free flow of information is critical to progress, and people should be allowed to process it independently rather than being censored or brainwashed.”
“I believe that this will be a historically positive change for our social and economic world. That free flow of information being taken out of the hands of the radically oppressive left will allow us to thrive as a society and as an economy. I think it’s going to be very exciting! I’d like to see Elon Musk buy Google!”
Somewhat controversially, before signing off, she added:
“And let’s not forget Donald Trump is going to get the world back on the right track.”
Watch out ‘MeGain’ – Your sensible sister Samantha was never going to be silenced and as much as you wish to spin out nonsense in Spare, the world will be watching and waiting as you yet again bring shame on the hapless House of Sussex.
The half-sister of the Duchess of Sussex now has her account back. We urge readers to join us in following her as she takes on a sibling whose antics are quite frankly nothing other than noxious.The two sisters pictured together in happier times. How different things could have been if Prince Harry’s wicked wife had simply included her birth family in the fold.Prince Harry’s wife is attempting to block her half-sister from deposing him and her father Thomas in her defamation lawsuit it was reported earlier this month. According to ‘Hello!’ earlier this month: “[Her legal team] have requested a judge stop the process of collecting and releasing evidence until a ruling on whether the lawsuit should be entirely thrown out. They argue that Meghan’s statements about her relationship with Samantha are ‘non-actionable opinion that are also substantially true… A deposition of Mr. Markle at this juncture, along with other discovery, would be an unnecessary spectacle and waste of the parties’ time, money, and resources,’ their filing read, via the publication. ‘[Samantha Markle] should not be permitted to force Meghan and, potentially, numerous non-parties to devote substantial resources to extraneous discovery while a meritorious motion that could dispose of the entire case is pending.’”
What’s the truth about the stories that abound about the Duchess of Sussex?
Of her claiming having got married the day before she actually did, Mr Markle stated: “Lying about the archbishop? How can you say: ‘We’ve been married three days before we got married’? Her lies are so obvious, I don’t know why she says them.”
Her very own half-sister, Samantha, who is currently bringing a defamation case against her, has called her out as a liar on multiple occasions also. It has been shown that the duchess’s claim that she hasn’t seen her sibling in over 20 years was proven untrue when a photo of the pair 13 years ago emerged.
Her very own half-brother, Thomas Jr., said of her: “I told Prince Harry, I think she’s going to ruin your life. She’s very shallow… She’s a phony, a bully, a jaded, shallow, conceited woman.”
The wife of Prince Harry has been called out on multiple occasions for spinning stories against other members of the royal family, most especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Staff who’ve worked for her have complained that she is a bully and investigations into this remain ongoing.
The Duchess of Sussex is a known manipulator of the press and paparazzis and it has been claimed that she’ll “twist the truth” to get any headline she wants.
Questions remain as to how many times she’s actually been married in total. Some say twice, some say thrice.
Did the ‘Montecito Meddler’ meet Prince Andrew or Prince Harry first? Rumours abound that she could have spent time and holidayed with the former as long ago as 2001 and that her claim to have no prior knowledge of the royal family until 2016 is just utter baloney.
As “rumours” circulate that ‘Randy Andy’ and ‘Feckless Fergie’ might remarry again do the rounds, we again ask: “Did they ever repay loans taken from the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”
Yesterday, repeating a story that occasionally does the rounds, Entertainment Daily’s Julia Hunt asked: “Are Prince Andrew and Fergie to remarry in the wake of [his] sex scandal?”
Claiming the couple “have been plagued by rumours they could remarry recently,” former Bang Showbiz and Press Association freelance writer Hunt quoted a September 2021 feature by Vanity Fair’s royal ‘expert’ Katie Nicholl as her primary evidence. In it, Nicholl – best known for crashing Kate Moss’s 30th birthday party at Claridge’s and discovering guests on the hokey-cokey – shared:
“Sarah and Andrew have been closer than ever in the past year. They still love and care for each other a great deal and have been living together during the pandemic.”
“It has rekindled something and I can see a second wedding happening if it [the Virginia Roberts Giuffre lawsuit] all goes Andrew’s way.”
Whilst Hunt’s update is clearly nothing but idle gossip produced without the citing of any new sources, last week the MailOnline’s Jack Wright revealed that the non-sweaty, Pizza Express loving mate of the alleged fraudster Bernie Ecclestone that is the Duke of York “barely leaves home.” He has been left wondering how his reputation has been left in tatters by his friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein” and is said to be enduring a “period of intense self-reflection.”
Going further of a “virtual recluse” who has been left wondering “how everything went so wrong,” Wright turned to a previous article from The Telegraph and quoted yet another unnamed source, a “friend,” who stated:
“He has a much better understanding of the challenges he faces than at any other point in his life. He has a better sense of perspective – partly because he’s had these three years to reflect – to do the work, and to focus on his immediate family. The Duke of York of today is much more thoughtful and more mindful than he has ever been.”
“He acknowledges privately that Newsnight was by no means his finest hour.”
“The feeling that he has been treated abysmally is held by his nearest and dearest, but the duke’s attitude is more along the lines of: It is what it is.”
Clearly, though these ‘sources’ could be as made up as the spoof ‘Sir Michael Take CBE’ Twitter account that so successfully conned the MailOnline’s non-fact checking Elizabeth Haigh this morning (see below), things that seem unlikely do often occur in the royal family.
The friendship between Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein dated back to the 1990s. In that time, both him and his ex-wife enjoyed hospitality and financial benefits from the since croaked paedophile without consideration of where the Ponzi scheming crook was actually getting his wonga from.The Duke of York and Sarah, Duchess of York did not think to question where the money they happily grabbed came from and they did not question what the mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell was doing with the young girls she so eagerly sex trafficked for Epstein either. How terribly convenient.On Thursday 20th August 1992, the ‘Daily Mirror’ shared what they called “the pictures they didn’t want you to see.” In them, a topless Duchess of York was shown having her toes sucked in the South of France by a Texan millionaire named John Bryan. Of the incident, the ‘Mirror’ later reported: “Royal writer Richard Kay claimed in the ‘Daily Mail’ that he received a message via pager from Princess Diana the night before the photos hit the newspaper stands. Diana’s message was simple: ‘The redhead’s in trouble.’” If she were now to remarry the Duke of York, would it be accepted or would there be even more trouble?This morning on Twitter, editor of ‘The Steeple Times’ Matthew Steeples shared a tweet about another example of ‘fake news’ shared by the ‘MailOnline’s’ Elizabeth Haigh. Accompanying a quoted tweet, Steeples observed: “The @MailOnline has been caught out by a spoof Twitter account. Sir Michael TAKE certainly TOOK some pillock on the paper. Retraction? Apology? I doubt it. #fakenews #dailymail #mailonline #youvebeenhad.” It is likely that ‘Entertainment Daily’s’ Julia Hunt has been similarly caught out with her story about the Duke of York and Sarah, Duchess of York considering remarriage, but who knows with ‘Needy’ and ‘Greedy’ … Stranger things could and have already happened.
Of sex, her 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 the royal family: “They tried to put the little redhead in a cage.”
Of her life: “I have been in the gutter.”
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.”
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.”
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 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, over-trusting, idiotic, stupid woman that went to look for the perfect situation, and that’s all I can say really.”
Prince Andrew’s second cousin calls out Daphne Barak’s ‘interviews’ with mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell as “self-serving” and her way of “taking everyone down with her”
Hillary Clinton mouthpiece Daphne Barak’s ‘interviews’ with convicted sex trafficking nonce Ghislaine Maxwell have gone down like a lead balloon with Christina Oxenberg, a second cousin of Prince Andrew.
Speaking to The U.S. Sun about what she views as a pair of “self-serving” interviews by Jeffrey Epstein’s co-collaborator in multiple abuse of multiple victims, Oxenberg remarked:
“They are pretending that they’re on [Prince Andrew’s] side and they’re helping him and they’re working with him. They’re not at all, this is entirely self-serving.”
“He doesn’t need any more help from Ghislaine. Here they are saying: ‘We’re gonna prove that the photograph is not real.’ It doesn’t really matter anymore. He’s already paid the money.”
“This is her way of pretending she’s helping him, and he’s buying it.”
“She says there are 50 points wrong with the photograph, that’s how liars speak.”
“A truthful person would say: ‘The three of us were never in that house. So, it’s impossible.’ And she never goes anywhere near that. She’s like: ‘No, look at the shadow on his hand.’”
“She really destroyed the last year of the Queen’s life, making Her Majesty worry about Andrew and the shenanigans and that’s all on Maxwell, she caused all of that distress.”
“And her only motivation is to save herself, meanwhile taking everyone down with her on the way.”
“I wish he would come out and say: ‘I am so sorry [Maxwell] tricked me and I fell for it. I brought disgrace, I brought misery.’”
“But now that I see clearly all I can do is be grateful that I know the truth and cut all ties with Ghislaine and admit my shame and move forward in a positive way.”
“The best thing he could do is have the courage to come out and admit he was used by her. And then he would be free of her. Let her rot in jail and forget about her. And he could start his road to redemption.”
Turning to Maxwell’s comments about her former “friends” President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump, Oxenberg surmised that she was “’signalling’ to the pair that she still holds the power.” She added:
“She is reminding them who is boss. She’s so sinster and creepy, she’s evil and I won’t drop that stance. She has no remorse.”
“This line that she’s pushing about how any woman could have fallen in love [with a bad guy]. Very few women would agree to commit felonies, multiple felonies for years. There are some, but there are very few. And most are in jail.”
“That is so insulting to say that: ‘Oh, anyone who’s been in a bad relationship.’ First of all, it wasn’t a relationship, it was a job. And she never said she loved him, she tried to get him to marry her.”
Of how the former Oceana ‘charity’ chief will cope in the clink, Oxenberg offered:
“I’m well aware that Ghislaine is a good fit. She’s with her own kind, those with a criminal mind. She’s tough, she’s arrogant and they’ll love her accent, they’ll find it funny. And she’s just going to blame everything on Epstein.”
Previously, in January 2020, Christina Oxenberg told Page Six that she had attended a “ladies’ tea party” in Maxwell’s then home on 79th Street in New York in 1991 where the mucky madam was dressed in just her knickers and bra.
Of the bizarre encounter – prior to which the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ deviant daughter had “wailed… ‘I’m poor!’” on the telephone whilst inviting her guest – Oxenberg recalled:
“Ghislaine presided in a white lacy bra and underwear set and lots of jewelry; she jangled as she moved. She explained the lack of clothing was because she was hot and it was summertime. She fanned herself with a copy of Vogue … I can’t remember their names but there were three other females at this tea party. We remained fully clothed.”
Also present was “a baby Yorkshire terrier” named Max, “which Maxwell had been gifted.” Of this Oxenberg observed: “More than once, she threw the quivering little bundle violently across the room. She thought this was hilariously funny.”
Taking everyone down Maxwell style – The deranged deviant, mucky madam with the terrier she is said to have abused just like she abused her victims. Here is a wicked woman allegedly abused by her wicked father who did not know right from wrong and who thus viewed abusing both humans and animals as perfectly normal.Taking everyone down Maxwell style – The mucky madam with Christina Oxenberg and His Royal Highness Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia in 2013.Taking everyone down Maxwell style – The mucky madam with her siblings in London in the summer of 2019.
Key quotes from Daphne Barak’s ‘interviews’ that are more PR peddling spinning than journalistic digging and key questions that arise as a result of this disgraceful PR peddling even being allowed
The recent toady interviews in The Sun on Sunday and The Mail on Sunday by ‘journalist’ Daphne Barak, who seems to like associating with the mates of the mucky madam Maxwell as much as she did herself, have been rightly called out as “poor” and “nothing but PR” by a woman with a goal of “taking everyone down” with her.
Key questions that arise as a result are:
Why did the American authorities allow a prisoner to give such interviews so soon after her conviction?
Did the authorities not consider the impact such interviews would have on the victims of this convicted sex trafficking nonce and grubby groping abuser?
What is the agenda of Daphne Barak and what involvement did Kevin Maxwell and his siblings have in setting up these interviews?
Did PR peddlers for the mucky madam – such as Brian Basham, Jay Beecher and Ross Gow – have any involvement in the bringing about of these interviews?
Why did this so-called ‘journalist’ not ask anything about what this mucky madam feels about the impact of her actions on her many victims?
Why did this so-called ‘journalist’ not ask anything about this mucky madam’s secret marriage to Scott Borgerson in 2015?
Why did this so-called ‘journalist’ not ask why Ghislaine Maxwell – someone she’s associated with for at least 30 years – hasn’t paid off her debts to her lawyers?
Some quotes from Barak’s clearly biased in favour of assisting Jeffrey Epstein’s one-time-lover and co-abuser’s interviews follow:
Of Prince Andrew:
“I accept that this friendship could not survive my conviction. He is paying such a price for the association. I consider him a dear friend. I care about him.”
Of President Bill Clinton:
“It was a special friendship, which continued over the years. We had lots in common. I feel bad that he is another victim, only because of his association with Jeffrey. I understand he, like others, can no longer consider me as a friend.”
Of Jeffrey Epstein:
“I said in my court statement that meeting Epstein was the greatest mistake of my life. And obviously, if I could go back today, I would avoid meeting him, and I would make different choices.”
Of President Donald Trump:
“We knew each other and mingled in the same circles, in New York, Palm Beach. I was very grateful when he wished me well after (the arrest). He got bad media for it, but he dared, while others didn’t.
“I was honoured he remembered me. Well, he is known to say what he thinks. It gave me a big boost.”
Of other friends and former friends:
“There are people who have disappointed me and there are people I’m surprised have not, you know, been a little more proactive. I completely understand people have livelihoods to protect… children to protect.”
“But having said that, there are people who have stood by me privately. Quite a few, actually, and I’m extremely appreciative of their private support.”
“I have friends who I have literally known my entire life since I was at kindergarten. It’s good to know there are people out there who know who I am, really.”
Of that now infamous photo with Prince Andrew and the then Virginia Roberts at 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgavia in March 2001:
“This photo is not real… There was never an original one produced.”
Names in the firing line most obvious from Ghislaine’s filthy ‘Little Black Book’ as she seeks to minimise her sentence
Ghislaine Maxwell has until June 2023 to cooperate and thus “name names” if she wishes to see her sentence reduced.
Those Scott Borgerson’s estranged 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
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
As prized pillock Prince Andrew reacts to mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s interviews, we suggest that he’s a case of “with friends like these, who needs enemies”
Non-sweating, Pizza Express loving prized pillock Prince Andrew isn’t very good at choosing mates. He’s got “I’d take a bullet for Putin” coffin dodger Bernie Ecclestone – a deranged dwarf-like dweeb currently on trial for fraud – and aside from a fair few despots, he happily used to hang around with the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – even after his 2008 conviction.
Whilst Maxwell claimed to “care for… dear friend [the Duke of York],” the chirpy, chatty “friend” of the late Queen’s second son responded describing the criminal’s remarks as “[having] not been very helpful.” Clearly, said individual is someone who likes understatements when it comes to observing public relations disaster areas.
“With friends like these, who needs enemies” comes to mind in the wake of Maxwell’s interviews with Barak for The Sun on Sunday and The Mail on Sunday. Here is a woman who has used her latest PR peddler to send out a message and it is a message that is clear.
The deviant daughter of a man most definitely a spy wants to tell the world something and that something is this: Ponzi schemer Jeffrey Epstein’s former lover is alerting the royal and the likes of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump that she expects them to help her out of her hell hole. It is a hell hole where she actually deserves to rot for the rest of her genuinely rotten existence.
Pictured top – The Duke of York and his live-in ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York snapped in a Range Rover yesterday looking, as the ‘MailOnline’ was quick to point out, “ashen faced” and “incredibly serious.”
With friends like these… The guffawing goon that is the Duke of York was happy to take the “benefits” of his friendship with someone who bunged him cash and girls, Jeffrey Epstein, when it suited him. He was happy to take the “benefits” of his friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell, someone he allegedly even had a relationship with, when it suited him. He must now face the music and possibly also prepare to be dragged before the authorities if he ever dares to darken the doors of the United States of America ever again. Shame on him.With friends like these… 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.With friends like these… Another chum of ‘Air Miles Andy’ is the billionaire despot leader of Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev. This authoritarian dictator is known for a regime that presides over elections that are not free and fair, where political power is concentrated in the hands of his family, where corruption is rampant and human rights violations are beyond severe. The Aliyev’s have over £400 million of property in the United Kingdom alone and the Duke of York has most definitely been beyond helpful to them.With friends like these… Sarah, Duchess of York, equally, has a lot to fear from Ghislaine Maxwell. She happily took wonga from Ponzi schemer Jeffrey Epstein in loans and gifts and has never declared whether or not she ever repaid such prior to the paedophile’s death in 2019. Shame on her.
As the ‘Sussex Squad’ yet again get rightly called out on Twitter, shameless socialist Jeremy Corbyn bizarrely leaps to the multi-millionaire’s defence; with an unlikely friend like him, who needs enemies?
This morning, as is so often the case, the ‘Sussex Squad’ and their mistress-in-chief the Duchess of Sussex trended on Twitter. There is nothing surprising about that – given the public’s clear dislike for the meddling menace formerly known as Meghan Markle – but now, it seems, the wicked wench has gone and got herself an unlikely super-fan: Labour’s worst ever leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
Speaking to Aaron Bastani, the co-founder of the left-wing media organisation Novara Media, on Tuesday ‘Jezza’ remarked:
“I had very nice chats with Harry and Meghan… Very interesting, interesting. Harry’s life, Harry’s life has always been totally in the public eye, but a former serving officer and so on in the armed forces and Meghan, I think, is very interesting, a very clear-thinking woman, I’ve got a lot of time for her.”
“[She’s not been treated so badly] in the last few days, in the last few days it’s been alright for the last few days. They’ve been quite warm towards her, but she, erm, before that, I think the treatment of her has been appalling.”
“It’s led by the media wanting to, erm, I don’t know why, they just wanted to build her up into a negative figure, which she’s not. She is an intelligent, thoughtful woman.”
“I absolutely think there’s a racial component to it, absolutely, yeah. I do.”
“I mean, erm, who? Why? That’s speculation, but you know, she is a very able person and she’s got a great contribution to make and lots of radical ideas. She’s a good speaker, good, good.”
“I think that’s what the stress is [a career outside her marriage]… Well, the Duke of Edinburgh always called it ‘The Firm’ because they should be, click, like that. [She wasn’t up that]… NOPE! That’s what I understand, yeah.”
“Like that, where there’s any family stress, it’s very difficult to cope with. Look at it from the human point of view.”
Who’d have thought a far-left socialist and a woman living in a £14 million mansion in Montecito would end up besties? They say stranger things happen, but in this curious case they most certainly already have.
Who’d have thought a leftie like Jeremy Corbyn would want to become a mouthpiece for the meddling menace that is the woman formerly known as Meghan Markle? Perhaps this hypocritical toerag is angling for a holiday at her Montecito mansion?
What’s the truth about the stories that abound about the Duchess of Sussex?
Of her claiming having got married the day before she actually did, Mr Markle stated: “Lying about the archbishop? How can you say: ‘We’ve been married three days before we got married’? Her lies are so obvious, I don’t know why she says them.”
Her very own half-sister, Samantha, who is currently bringing a defamation case against her, has called her out as a liar on multiple occasions also. It has been proven that the duchess’s claim that she hasn’t seen her sibling in over 20 years was proven untrue when a photo of the pair 13 years ago emerged.
Her very own half-brother, Thomas Jr., said of her: “I told Prince Harry, I think she’s going to ruin your life. She’s very shallow… She’s a phony, a bully, a jaded, shallow, conceited woman.”
The wife of Prince Harry has been called out on multiple occasions for spinning stories against other members of the royal family, most especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Staff who’ve worked for her have complained that she is a bully and investigations into this remain ongoing.
The Duchess of Sussex is a known manipulator of the press and paparazzis and it has been claimed that she’ll “twist the truth” to get any headline she wants.
Questions remain as to how many times she’s actually been married in total. Some say twice, some say thrice.
Questions remain also as to what engagement the duchess has had with meddlers such as Christopher Bouzy, Omid Scobie and her other ‘Sussex Squaddies’ and also as to what her deals with the likes of Netflix and Spotify involve her ‘spilling.’
Did the ‘Montecito Meddler’ meet Prince Andrew or Prince Harry first? Rumours abound that she could have spent time and holidayed with the former as long ago as 2001 and that her claim to have no prior knowledge of the royal family until 2016 is just utter baloney.
As the dopey Duchess of Sussex is derided for her “me, me, me” speech in Manchester, her pugnacious PR peddler Omid Scobie continues his cretinous campaign against her husband’s family
Today, as the new Prime Minister Liz Truss heads to Balmoral to see the Queen, it remains unknown as to whether her grandson Prince Harry and his wife – currently in Europe bigging themselves up in spite of the public clearly not wanting them present – will bother to do the same and pay a visit also.
In Düsseldorf today for the Invictus Games but said to be have “free time” tomorrow before being expected at the WellChild Awards in London on Thursday, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were deservedly slammed by Gyles Brandreth yesterday on ITV’s This Morning programme.
Speaking of the dastardly duo, the much-loved veteran broadcaster and author declared: “The number of people being as sympathetic to them [the Sussexes] as they were initially does seem to be sort of thinning out a little bit… Once you make yourself the story, then you yourself become the story. What should be the story is the good works that you are doing… but, in fact, what we’re talking about is the family rift.”
Unsurprisingly, elsewhere the MailOnline’s Mark Duell referenced an intervention by Omid Scobie – who he termed “Meghan and Harry’s friend and trusted media partner” – in which the feckless Finding Freedom ‘author’ laughably claimed: “This is very much about the work [that the couple] wanted to do ever since they stepped back.” The leading “Sussex Squaddie” and all-round troll did, however, fail to mention what role paymasters’ Netflix and Spotify would play in the charade and also neglected to justify his continuing campaign against other members of Prince Harry’s family.
Turning to the speech to 2,000 young people in Manchester yesterday by the Duchess of Sussex, The Sun’s Sarah Grealish reported on a “Meg-A Snub” and shared news of the former Suits actress and her drippy husband being “booed and branded ‘fake royals’ by [the] crowd on [their] ‘me, me, me’ mini-tour.” The duchess referenced herself an astonishing 54 times during her 7-minute “nonsensical” tirade before the assembled gathering at the One Young World youth gala.
Grealish added that the couple were faced with “anti-royal placards” and “one woman accused Meghan of being a ‘liar and a hypocrite’ and of launching an ‘attack’ on the royal family.” Another, “Janet from Manchester” is said to have added: “She’s a fake humanitarian and a fake feminist. She’s a social climber… She thought she could be a celebrity in the royal family and she’s the most toxic, divisive woman I’ve ever heard of in my life.”
Pictured top – Plastic-not-anything-but-fantastic PR peddler not-a-journalist Omid Scobie (left) and his delusional puppet mistress, the Duchess of Sussex (right) yesterday in the north of England.
The ‘Montecito Meddler’ turned up looking like a scarlet woman to give her speech yesterday. It was met with derision given it was just about herself rather than inspiring to the young people who’d paid upto £1,000 to be present.On Twitter, Jimmy Failla of ‘Fox Across America’ called out the Duchess of Sussex and remarked of her: “It takes a special kind of stupid to claim women are being held back on the SAME DAY they name a Female Prime Minister” in the United Kingdom.Meanwhile this morning, after the ‘Daily Mail’s’ Richard Eden referenced “charity clearly [starting] at home for mother and daughter” behind the One Young World charity – after ‘The Sun’ reported that Kate Robertson and her daughter Ella Robertson McKay took home £634,494 in pay between them last year in spite of the pandemic, ‘The Steeple Times’s’ editor Matthew Steeples expressed surprise that “Chanel-clad” Baroness Meyer – who Eden had previously called out for her “charitable” antics” – had not got in on the act.The second son of Prince Charles and his late former wife Diana, Princess of Wales were told they were “fake royals” and to “f**k off” by one placard waving protestor. Another added: “[‘MeGain’] has used every card she can – racism, mental health, feminism. She’s not a feminist, she’s just a hypocrite.”As the duo arrived at the Bridgewater Hall, they were booed and jeered from behind barriers by an angry mob. Their demand for a “ring of steel” security curtain to shield them from such did nothing except draw further attention to how much the British public truly dislike their audacious antics.The couple’s popularity has plunged further and further into the quagmire in recent months. Nobody is surprised about that and they’re most certainly up there with non-sweating friend of child abusing sex traffickers Prince Andrew in the very, very disliked stakes.
What’s the truth about the stories that abound about the Duchess of Sussex?
Of her claiming having got married the day before she actually did, Mr Markle stated: “Lying about the archbishop? How can you say: ‘We’ve been married three days before we got married’? Her lies are so obvious, I don’t know why she says them.”
Her very own half-sister, Samantha, who is currently bringing a defamation case against her, has called her out as a liar on multiple occasions also. It has been proven that the duchess’s claim that she hasn’t seen her sibling in over 20 years was proven untrue when a photo of the pair 13 years ago emerged.
Her very own half-brother, Thomas Jr., said of her: “I told Prince Harry, I think she’s going to ruin your life. She’s very shallow… She’s a phony, a bully, a jaded, shallow, conceited woman.”
The wife of Prince Harry has been called out on multiple occasions for spinning stories against other members of the royal family, most especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Staff who’ve worked for her have complained that she is a bully and investigations into this remain ongoing.
The Duchess of Sussex is a known manipulator of the press and paparazzis and it has been claimed that she’ll “twist the truth” to get any headline she wants.
Questions remain as to how many times she’s actually been married in total. Some say twice, some say thrice.
Did the ‘Montecito Meddler’ meet Prince Andrew or Prince Harry first? Rumours abound that she could have spent time and holidayed with the former as long ago as 2001 and that her claim to have no prior knowledge of the royal family until 2016 is just utter baloney.
In yet again making it all about his anything but sorry self and tittle-tattling about his delusional worries about his personal security, the PR peddler for the Duchess of Sussex that is the maniac Omid Scobie yet again shows himself as nothing but a prized pillock and prat
Some people make it their life’s work to laud those that do good whilst others make it their life’s work to bring down those that behave improperly. In many ways both sets of people – and some fall into both categories variously – are to be celebrated, but then there are those that simply have to connect anything to their not at all relevant in any way to anything narrative’s to themselves.
Unsurprisingly yet again showing himself as the ultimate example of such yesterday, the rotten-to-his-core PR peddler for the Duchess of Sussex that is the maniac Omid Scobie turned a story about who ought to pay for royal security into a fantasy about his worries about his own personal security.
In a rabid rant for Yahoo! News, the – just like the deranged duchess he so toadily cosies up to – the one-time mate of the glamour model Jodie Marsh whinged and whined and then whimpered:
“I witness a lot myself, too. Thanks to a never-ending stream of false tabloid tales calling me the couple’s ‘close friend’ or ‘spokesman,’ I regularly receive an extension of their online threats. The messages range from extreme racism to disturbingly violent scenes involving the likes of dismemberment, car accidents and rape. They always get forwarded to the police.”
Clearly aimed at countering the deserved hatchet job done by Tom Bower’s Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War between the Windsors, this as yet untitled tittle-tattling trash, according to its avaricious author, will focus on “a new chapter of the royal story and feature unique insight, deep access and exclusive revelations… [that will] have the world talking.”
Desperate to scavenge anything he can from the car wreck that is the frankly increasingly boring ‘story’ of the modern day ‘Mr and Mrs Wallis Simpson,’ Scobie should (but of course won’t) finally realise one thing: The world’s laughing at this ludicrous arse-licker and not with him and his birdbrained bosses. It’s time all three of them did something else: It’s high time the lot of them bloody well bogged off.
“The safety of others should never be up for debate” pontificated the ‘Finding Freedom’ author whilst sharing his latest bag of bilge. He pompously ended: “Reinstate Harry’s security at his own expense – before it’s too late.” Clearly a crackpot crazy conspiracy theorist, what does this berk expect to happen to the couple he has made a career out of arselicking? A car crash? Murder at the Montecito mansion Manson style? Them eaten alive by a lion?In August 2020, the ‘Daily Mail’ shared that plastic-not-fantastic Omid previously worked at gossip magazine ‘Heat’ and partied with the ‘glamour model’ Jodie Marsh. They mentioned how somebody had “airbrushed” Meghan Markle’s “entry on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia… to include more flattering details days before her romance with Prince Harry became public” and illustrated the ‘Finding Freedom’ author’s “drastic transformation” in two very different photographs. Maniac Scobie is someone who most definitely would like his past forgotten, but here again we remind him that he’s actually just a two-faced twerp.An analysis of maniac Omid Scobie’s Twitter feed clearly shows that a large proportion of his followers are a bit like himself: FAKE.Illustrating his clearly delusional desperation for attention, the ‘Finding Freedom’ author recently took to Twitter to declare: “Know that if I’m quiet at the moment, it’s because I’m busy writing – (and it feels so nice to be able to finally admit that!)… I’m always watching though.” Who on earth does this blabbering bozo think he is? MI5?On 4th August, the day the wicked wench formerly known as Meghan Markle turned maybe 41 or maybe 45, the both witty and wise ‘Daily Mail’ diarist Richard Eden tweeted: “Happy birthday to the Duchess of Sussex, who’s 41 today, or as Omid Scobie would put it, 31. #MeghanMarkle.”
Of her claiming having got married the day before she actually did, Mr Markle stated: “Lying about the archbishop? How can you say: ‘We’ve been married three days before we got married’? Her lies are so obvious, I don’t know why she says them.”
Her very own half-sister, Samantha, who is currently bringing a defamation case against her, has called her out as a liar on multiple occasions also. It has been proven that the duchess’s claim that she hasn’t seen her sibling in over 20 years was proven untrue when a photo of the pair 13 years ago emerged.
Her very own half-brother, Thomas Jr., said of her: “I told Prince Harry, I think she’s going to ruin your life. She’s very shallow… She’s a phony, a bully, a jaded, shallow, conceited woman.”
The former Meghan Markle has been called out on multiple occasions for spinning stories against other members of the royal family, most especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Staff who’ve worked for her have complained that she is a bully and investigations into this remain ongoing.
The Duchess of Sussex is a known manipulator of the press and paparazzis and it has been claimed that she’ll “twist the truth” to get any headline she wants.
Questions remain as to how many times she’s actually been married in total. Some say twice, some say thrice. Any answer to such allegations, ‘MeGain’?
Who did this wicked wench meet first? Prince Andrew or Prince Harry?
Was the Duchess of Sussex ever associated in any way with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in the 2000s and 2010s?
What exactly defines the relationship between the Duchess of Sussex and Omid Scobie and Markus Anderson? Is it social, financial or is there something more to it?
As the Duchess of Sussex supposedly turns 41, pundits question whether this is yet another example of her “convenient truths” and suggest she could actually be now aged 45
Today marks, if you believe her nonsensical narrative, the 41st birthday of the Duchess of Sussex. Today, if you don’t believe her narrative and side with her estranged sister Samantha, it is actually the wicked woman formerly known as Meghan Markle’s 45th birthday.
Accused also of having “fabricated past stories to bolster her career as an actress,” the now wife of Prince Harry’s claimed, aged 13 at the time, that she kissed a boy also aged 13 when they both attended a summer camp in Santa Monica. Given, that ‘boy,’ “honour winning entertainer and author” Joshua Silverstein, is listed as having been born in 1977, that would make the pair of them 45 and most certainly not 41.
Today, as some wish her a happy birthday and others wish she’d just disappear forever into obscurity, it is time for some answers. Come on alleged ‘yacht girl’ Meghan, it’s time for the truth; how old, actually, are you?
Today on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Do you believe the woman formerly known as Meghan Markle is turning 41 today or do you believe her estranged sisters and others who suggest she might actually be turning 45?” The overwhelming response thus far suggests that the Twitterati believe the Duchess of Sussex to be telling porky pies about her real age.Samantha Markle was supposedly born on Tuesday 24th November 1964, which makes her 57 years, 8 months old. Her sister, she has claimed in legal documents is 13 years older than her, which would make her 45 years old and born in 1977 and not 41 and born in 1981 as she has claimed.At a time when the Queen has lost her husband and suffered the indignity of the embarrassment caused by her second son ‘Randy Andy’s’ antics with the likes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the attention seeking ways of Prince Charles’s second son and his trashbag American wife are not exactly helpful.Quora users have long speculated about and questioned the date of birth of the daughter of Thomas Markle and Dora Ragland. They, frankly, simply do not believe her suggestion of having been born on the 4th August 1981.Whatever the situation and whomever she is with, here is anything but camera shy woman who has to make utterly everything about herself.
Can anyone solve a problem like ‘MeGain’?
What year was Meghan Markle actually born in? Is she 41 and born in 1981 or is she 45 and born in 1977 as has variously been claimed?
Of her claiming having got married the day before she actually did, Mr Markle stated: “Lying about the archbishop? How can you say: ‘We’ve been married three days before we got married’? Her lies are so obvious, I don’t know why she says them.”
Her very own half-sister, Samantha, who is currently bringing a defamation case against her, has called her out as a liar on multiple occasions also. It has been proven that the duchess’s claim that she hasn’t seen her sibling in over 20 years was proven untrue when a photo of the pair 13 years ago emerged.
Her very own half-brother, Thomas Jr., said of her: “I told Prince Harry, I think she’s going to ruin your life. She’s very shallow… She’s a phony, a bully, a jaded, shallow, conceited woman.”
The former Meghan Markle has been called out on multiple occasions for spinning stories against other members of the royal family, most especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Staff who’ve worked for her have complained that she is a bully and investigations into this remain ongoing.
The Duchess of Sussex is a known manipulator of the press and paparazzis and it has been claimed that she’ll “twist the truth” to get any headline she wants.
Questions remain as to how many times she’s actually been married in total. Some say twice, some say thrice.
Speculation about the former actress having had “hook-ups” with Matt Lauer have been doing the rounds. The former NBC news personality had his contract terminated with NBC in November 2017 after it was revealed he’d been into all sorts of sexual inappropriate behaviour in the workplace.“Humiliated” Prince Harry’s wife has been accused also of being his “puppet master” and “destroying” him. His friends are said to have “blasted” her for taking him away from them and isolating him in their Montecito mansion.In 2019, tedious twerp and ‘Unherd’ contributor Tanya Gold got the Duchess of Sussex completely wrong when she wrote in the ‘New York Times’: “Why does Meghan have the press in such paroxysms? Well, she is an interloper: divorced, American, biracial and, apparently, progressive. And she dares not only to inhabit the role of duchess but also to make it her own. Still, her critics – energized by their racism, misogyny and snobbery – can relax. She is not a revolutionary socialist, nor a convincing human rights activist who destroy everything they love. She will not bring down the royal family. In 2019, she is precisely what it needs.” Oxford educated (but Oxford hating), former alcoholic Tanya clearly ought to stick to other topics – she’s best known, after all, for also bigging-up the late paedophile Jimmy Savile as a “national treasure” and “enabling Savilisation.”
