After Matthew Steeples called out ‘leaky #lockdownfiles sieve’ Isabel Oakeshott, her ‘chlorinated chicken chap’ Reform UK leader and TalkTV host Richard Tice bizarrely enquired of him: “What kind of monster are you?”
“Let’s Make Britain Great” is the predictably and very clearly ‘borrowed’ strapline used by Reform UK, a ‘political party’ – which actually is just an entity registered in England and Wales as company number 11694875. The Donald Trump-esque mantra is used as part of an attempt to attract swivel-eyed right wingers to an ‘operation’ that didn’t win a single seat in the 2021 London Assembly elections; at that poll, Reform UK laughably finished in tenth position – behind the Women’s Equality, Rejoin EU, UKIP and Animal Welfare parties even.
Tweeting Matthew Steeples, in several rambling rants likely written after a boozy lunch in Belgravia yesterday, ‘considerably richer than yow’ businessman and TalkTV tittle-tattler Tice very generously shared our article (“thanks, Dicky”) and remarked:
“So @M_Steeples is clearly just jealous of Isabel’s success because he is a 2 bit journo of a 2 bit rag that no-one has heard of. Keep going Matthew!”
Turning to COVID-19 itself, the father of three and regular yellow stickered shopper at ‘Celebrity Waitrose’ Belgavia raged:
“So you do not care about the damage to children, the inhumane CareHome restrictions, the awful funeral constraints, the suicides? What sort of monster are you?”
The response to his tweets has been overwhelming, but likely not quite what Tice was anticipating. Aside from being told: “Save your faux outrage, you hypocrite!” one social media observed: “Right back at ya. Stop spreading misleading information” of his ‘monster’ related question. Now Dicky dear, please do go and pour yourself a British beer and please ease your and grubby gym gear-clad Issie’s “jealousy” with that.
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
Pictured Top – Richard Tice decided to give Matthew Steeples a “Sunday sermon” about monsters yesterday; he did so late afternoon and likely after a few (British beer only) shandies and perhaps a boozy lunch (with non-European wines only) in Belgravia.
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Yesterday, Richard Tice of the Reform Party asked: ‘What sort of monster are you?’ of me after I called out his leaky squeeze Isabel Oakeshott. Who is actual monster in story of #lockdownfiles leaking of MattHancock’s WhatsApp missives?” He gave the options of a) Isabel Oakeshott (32.6%), b) Richard Tice, (8.7%) c) himself (6.5%) and d) Matt Hancock (52.5%). As of 11.30am on Monday 6th March the results were as listed.58-year-old Richard Tice ‘bigs himself up’ as some kind of man of the people in spite of having a clearly very privileged past and present. Often spotted in the tony taverns of Belgravia, this former Conservative donor has been involved in amongst other things property development and investment. He was privately educated at Uppingham and is the son the late horse trainer Joan Tice DL OBE. That he claims Matthew Steeples “jealous” of his gossipy girlfriend – a woman who falsely acted as a muckspreader when she falsely shared fake news that David Cameron had performed a sexual act on a dead pig – is proof permanent that he’s the one who is actually off his merry rocker. “Keep going Dicky!”Called out by Steeples after he suggested him a “2 bit journo of a 2 bit rag,” Tice responded: “What sort of monster are you?” He didn’t find a very positive response to his idiotic question from the majority of social media users.
Social media responds to Richard Tice’s rambling rants and questions about monsters…
Responding on Twitter and Facebook to the missives to Matthew Steeples, social media users observed of Tice and Oakeshott:
“Two-bit? Do you mean The Steeple Times? I read it all the time as do all in the know; distinguished and principled journalism – especially compared to the dross trotted out by your squeeze.”
“You’re a professional troll and so is Oakeshott. Who is paying you?”
“[Oakeshott] had these messages two years ago. Why is she only concerned about those issues now? What sort of monster is she?”
“The problem you have is that you are even more wrong than the government were!”
“Don’t try to kid us you care. You’ve tried to exploit the release of that information with your partner in an attempt to inflict political damage & now you pretend you care? You’re a 2 bit crappy grifter like Farage. I wouldn’t trust you with a lettuce, let alone our rights.”
“Save your faux outrage, you hypocrite! What about the damage to children currently suffering from Long Covid? I don’t hear you utter a bloody word about them!”
“If Isabel had been a decent person, i.e. concerned about what is in the public interest, she would have released ALL the information to ALL media without payment. We see you two for what you really are!”
“You are using those examples of wrongdoing and other peoples’ real human suffering to promote your own ends. What’s worse is that you are gaslighting people by cynically pretending that you are doing it ‘because you care,’ when self-interest is always your real motive. Shyster!”
“What we know is that Oakeshott released these messages at a time that was politically convenient but chose to hide the fact that Banks lied until she was exposed.”
“Disgusting you are trying to manipulate peoples’ suicides for your own benefit and agenda.”
“Serialised in the telegraph to maximise the news cycle/exposure. How is this about any more than @IsabelOakeshott and her personal & political agenda? It’s a massive scoop, dripping with tabloid subterfuge, but why dress it up as a crusade?
“She felt it was in public interest, was disgusted… But not before the book was out. And no doubt her leakage has been handsomely rewarded, possibly even legal protection should MH sue her. She’s the reason journalists will be less trusted with confidential matters.”
“They’re insulting your credibility, I thought you’d recognise that given how often it must occur.”
“You are a charlatan… Trying to make political gain out of peoples’ suffering. What sort of monster are you?”
“[You] didn’t care until you and [Oakeshott] could make political hay and a boatload of cash.”
“None of [the things Tice supposedly ‘cares’ about] are remotely true or relevant. File them under ‘things which ill-informed fight-wingers bleat about but never actually happened. No wonder the ‘UK’ is a global pariah and laughing stock.”
“It’s genuinely painful when dead-eyed sociopaths obsessed with political power no matter the cost lecture others about ‘caring.’ Your entire platform exists and feeds only on negative emotion, reactionary populism with power for its own sake as the final and only goal.”
“You would happily send [sic] asylum seekers drown. F**k off with the faux humanitarianism.”
“You do not care about so-called ordinary people. Stop pretending. I suspect you want an authoritarian far right tax haven complete with subservient work force.”
“You can care about all of this and still think your significant other is a wrong’un. Hope this helps, Dicky.”
“Like your partner, you care when it suits your agenda [Richard].”
“It’s you that’s the monster… A Tory monster. The worst kind.”
“Stop using peoples’ deaths for your own financial gain, you ghoul.”
“[‘What sort of monster are you?’]… That last line, have you ever considered looking in the mirror and pausing to think, [Richard]?”
“Right back at ya. Stop spreading misleading information.”
“Nice one… Brilliant… Keep up the good work, Matthew.”
“Oooh, you’ve got your knickers in a twist… Grow up Tice… You should be the leader of the Whataboutery Party.”
In August 2019, ‘The Steeple Times’ shared an image of Brexiteer Richard Tice buying yellow stickered salmon at Waitrose in Belgravia. We asked: “What next? Chlorinated American chicken?” and suggested he find another yellow sticker… That yellow sticker? ‘Bollocks to Brexit.’In September 2019, ‘The Steeple Times’ condemned Isabel Oakeshott as a “fake news creator” and shared a reader submitted photograph of her next to the “lapdance loving MP” John Whittingdale. For once, she wasn’t wearing her grubby gym gear.Reform UK bases its message most clearly on 45th POTUS Donald Trump’s message: “Let’s Make America Great Again.” It’s a message that has yet to resonate at the ballot box with the great British public. Perhaps Richard Tice should focus on that problem before worrying about ‘monsters’ that simply don’t exist.On Twitter, amongst much mockery, this image of a ‘Grifter’ bicycle simply shone out and had to be shared. As Norman Tebbit once argued, it might be time ‘Dicky Boy’ got on it.
As the world media focus on ‘Dirty Harry’s’ disgraceful interviews, Westminster seizes an opportunity to “bury bad news” about MPs outrageous outside earnings and most especially Theresa May’s £2.5 million pay topup since the last election
At 2.55pm BST on 11th September 2001, after both World Trade Center towers had been hit by aircraft propelled by Jihadists, Jo Moore, the then advisor and press officer of Stephen Byers, the then Transport, Local Government and Regions Secretary, thought it appropriate to send an email. It read: “It’s now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors’ expenses?”
Inevitably given 2,996 died that day including the 19 hijackers, Moore’s calculating communication ended up being leaked by someone no doubt quite rightly appalled at its contents and subsequently, it emerged that she’d had the gall to do it again in 2002.
After Princess Margaret died on 9th February and prior to her funeral on 15th February that year at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, on 13th February 2002, an email chain emerged between her and Martin Sixsmith, the then director of communications at Network Rail, in which it was remarked: “Princess Margaret is being buried [on Friday]. I will absolutely not allow anything else to be.”
Last night at 10.35pm BST, just after a ninety-minute interview with Prince Harry (AKA ‘Dirty Harry’ yet again now) – conducted by a close chum, Tom Bradby, who gave him the easiest of rides and didn’t ask any truly difficult questions of his dimwitted dunce mate of many years – splashed across news channels across the globe, a bit of ‘Jo Moore-ing’ was clearly underway at Westminster and headline information that would otherwise have been “tomorrow’s shockers” on any other day were quickly “given out.”
As featured in an expose by The Steeple Times back in November last year – when nobody else in the press seemed to want to ask pertinent questions about what was actually shockingly going on when Theresa May outrageously took money to speak in the place of questionable human rights that is Saudi Arabia – last night’s ‘little leak’ centred on the outside earnings of the grasping grabbers that are British Members of Parliament.
On any other day, a Sky News and Tortoise Media investigation that revealed that in total – in the last three years since the last general election – the 650 Members of Parliament that sit in the House of Commons have taken £183 million ($222 million, €208 million or درهم816 million) “in the form of second jobs, donations, free trips and hospitality, all from private sources,” would be front page news and enough to cause ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ types everywhere to have full-on coronaries.
Of their revelations, shared in an article late last night by Tortoise’s Catherine Neilan and Giles Whittell, the most amazing was that it was not the notoriously greedy former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who’d raked in the most to take top place for “side hustles,” but in fact she famed for being “naughty” by “wandering in wheat fields,” Theresa May. The Member for Maidenhead raked in over £2.5 million ($3 million, €2.8 million or درهم11.1 million) on top of her £85,000 ($103,000, €97,000 or درهم379,000) parliamentary salary.
Of the astounding £107,600 ($130,600, €122,300 or درهم480,000) payment, Lady May received from the World Travel and Tourism Council for the aforementioned likely very short speech in Saudi Arabia, the Belfast Telegraph later added: “[She took this for a speech in] a country she blocked ministers and officials from visiting following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.”
In 2003, Jo Moore resigned. Supposedly, she’s now a teacher, but whether she teaches the “art of communication” is unknown. If she does, perhaps Prince Harry might want to apply for lessons as he and his harridan handler wife could learn an awful lot from such. In addition, maybe it’s time for Lady May to get in on another “money sluice;” maybe, just maybe she out to go into business with Ms Moore also.
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party.
Pictured Top – The Right Honourable Lady May MP is quite happy to take Saudi wonga (and honours and millions more elsewhere) in spite of her £85,000 parliamentary salary and expense allowance; he who wanted to be “private” Prince Harry is quite happy to take millions in wonga from Netflix, Penguin Random House and Spotfiy (amongst others) to spill his guts whilst denigrating the reputations of his stepmother and his very own brother.
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Is Westminster using #HarryTheInterview as a way to ‘bury bad news’ (Jo Moore 9/11 style) about MPs outside earnings?” and accompanied his poll with the hashtags: “#PrinceHarry #MeghanMarkle #Harryhasgonemad #RoyalFamily #RoyalScandal #TheresaMay #DavidLammy #politics #MPs #power #mondaythoughts #MondayMorning #BuryBadNews”
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples also asked: “In wake of #HarryTheInterview with Tom Bradby last night, what’s your view of how Prince Harry comes out in the wash?” The overwhelming response thus far (76.4% as of 10am, 9th January 2022) has been: “A mangled mucked up mess.”
Twitter reacts to Tom Bradby’s toady interview…
The British public were shocked and stunned undoubtedly last night as they watched the Duke of Sussex bang on about everyone but himself being to blame for his predicament to his mate Tom Bradby on ITV1 last night.
Whilst the majority who reacted on Twitter were outraged, a few of his PR peddling fanatics and others did offer supportive words and encouragement.
Though Tory twerp Shaun Bailey got away with partying with billionaire Nick Candy during the 2020 lockdowns, that this ludicrous loser and electoral disaster area might now get a seat in the House of Lords courtesy of his chum Boris Johnson is utterly outrageous
Whilst the dimwitted dunce Emma Dent-Coad was shown to be an abhorrent bigot when she described Shaun Bailey, the subsequently trounced and utterly inept Conservative London mayoral candidate in May 2021, as a “token ghetto boy,” that he might now make it to the House of Lords is frankly ludicrous.
Beyond batshit bonkers Bailey, who partied with the billionaire property tycoon Nick Candy in December 2020 at Conservative Central Office in spite of strict lockdown rules being in place at the time, it was yesterday revealed was subject to no action. In a statement, the Metropolitan Police shared that “there was not enough to ‘disprove the version of events provided by attendees,’” The Guardian’s political correspondent Peter Walker yesterday reported.
Whilst countless ordinary folk were fined and named and shamed, that the hapless police force then headed by the disastrous dimwit Dame Cressida Dick opted to let off the pontificating pillock Bailey is an utter outrage, but what is worse is that it has also been suggested that Boris Johnson has nominated him for a seat in the House of Lords in his resignation honours list.
A self-declared “different dude” who has branded himself “gobby and dangerous,” Bailey not only lost to Sadiq Khan but also offered idiotic policies such as giving free burglar alarms to pensioners. He once also suggested that the 60,000 plus “homeless people in the capital would be able to save up for a £5,000 deposit to buy a share in a newly-built affordable home.”
Another blunder came in since quite rightly removed comments he left on the Conservative Women’s Organisation website. There, he observed: “If you could get girls to accept less of men’s rubbish then men would have to change because ultimately men are after a girl.”
Is this moronic man fit for elevation to the House of Lords? The answer is unequivocally: “NO!”
Pictured top – This likely future Lord claimed to offer “a fresh start for London” yet the electorate simply thought he was selling washing powder. They didn’t like the quality of his powder and they universally rejected this gobby goon and sent him packing; why then is he suitable for the House of Lords?
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party.
Who’s more stupid and who is ghastlier: Shaun Bailey or Owen Jones? During a 16:29 minute YouTube feature in May 2019, Bailey declared: “Nobody has a monopoly on common sense,” but then went on to prove he’s totally lacking in even an ounce of such.Shaun Bailey pictured with Nick Candy and others at a Christmas party during lockdown 2020 at Conservative Central Office at 4 Matthew Parker Street, London, SW1H 9HQ. Shaun Bailey with Boris Johnson. The fact that the pair “get on well” was proof enough that the loopy wannabe Mayor of London was unfit for high office.That Shaun Bailey was also snapped “minglin’” with Priti Patel illustrated the low qualities of those he chose to associate with him. That a woman voted a “snitch” and a “neighbour from hell” was someone he opted to be snapped with on the campaign trail was proof enough that he simply didn’t have his finger on the pulse.The now former London mayoral candidate with former Prime Minister David Cameron. The smug look on this duo’s faces sums up the “f**k the rest of you” attitude of these opportunists; here is a pair whose involvement in politics has caused nothing but disaster for everyone whilst their own pockets get deeper.In January 2019, ‘The Red Roar’ reported Bailey was forced to return donations to his campaign from an “impermissible donor” linked to the Paradise Papers scandal. His judgment is so piss poor that quite rightly now the public are quite rightly outraged that he could be elevated to the House of Lords.
Is it that mind-blowing that the Duchess of Sussex thinks she’s helping her cause with her latest antics? Isn’t this just instead yet another predictable example of her showing her truly self-serving character?
Deservedly condemned by Tom Bower in Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the war between the Windsors and hinted at as potentially a “yacht girl” for Prince Andrew by Kirby Sommers in July, the mendacious minx formerly known as Meghan Markle has very predictably scored multiple further own goals in recent days. Why, given her past form, anyone is surprised however is quite beyond comprehension.
Going further, in an opinion piece widely saluted titled “Toddler and tiara: Meghan Markle STILL throwing tantrums about royal family,” Callahan added:
“This woman has nothing to say. She has nothing to offer, no original thoughts or guiding philosophy, no earthly reason to be taking so much money from, and so much space in, the mainstream media she so clearly despises.”
Summing her up as “the Greta Garbo of Montecito,” a new “Queen of All Things Sufferable” and “the Petulant Princess,” the award winning “Top 50 Power Women 2016” journalist amongst other things suggested:
“I must concede her lone accomplishment here: Just when you think Meghan Markle can’t get any more delusional, she outdoes herself. Her self-regard runs in direct opposition to her waning relevance. She clearly has no real friends left — or even decent publicists… Meghan is an inveterate liar.”
“What will make Meghan happy? Hell if she knows. The only solace she finds from this existential torment, it seems, is sitting for fancy photo shoots and talking to friendly journalists.”
“Left to her own devices here, Meghan returns to her default mode, perseverating over the Queen’s refusal to give her and Harry everything they wanted: namely, to monetize [sic] their royal status while owing nothing in public service.”
“’I think forgiveness is really important,’ Meghan says, adding that she has ‘a lot to say until I don’t. Sometimes, as they say, the silent part is still part of the song.’ Meghan Markle, two very weary nations beg you: Please. Be that silent part.”
Though outrage at the conduct of the Duchess of Sussex and ultimately also her drip of a husband towards the Queen and other members of both the House of Windsor and her own birth family is understandable, this ridiculous woman is simply incapable of accepting that it is her that is at fault. It seems that ambitious and audacious ‘MeGain’ will stop at nothing to achieve her next goal – the keys to the White House.
Known for slipping on proverbial bananas – as well as writing patronising messages on them to prostitutes – the wife of Prince Charles’s second son is clearly on a path where she will create more embarrassment and bring yet more havoc to both her marital and birth families. It is an outrage that nobody urges her to see sense and teaches her to behave with a modicum of decorum and an ounce of decency.Here is a woman who won’t stop until she next seizes high office. It is clear that a political career is very much on the agenda of this self-obsessed ex-D-list actress.
"Her aim is to get rid of the British Royal Family, without a doubt."
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.
‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ star Johnny Depp’s victory was deserved; it is now time for Amber Heard to be dragged back to Britain to face perjury charges
Johnny Deep v Amber Heard (Round Two) was always going to be car crash viewing. Like Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney though with a bit of added crack and cocaine, this was a defamation case that frankly should not have been heard but also one that illustrated that self-serving vanity generally leads to self-deserved destruction.
As was seen when Vardy was most definitely kicked into touch in the witness box, the crocodile tears of Heard will now go down in history as representative only of someone of warped mind and wicked motive. Here was a woman whose lies have come back to haunt her and here is someone whose name will now forever be mud.
Supported by amongst others Javier Bardem, Kate Moss, Winona Ryder and Sia, Depp – admittedly a man with flaws that must be acknowledged – was not only the victor in the courtroom. He won legions of fans on social media and now though The Guardian’s Andrew Pulver suggested that the careers prospects of both will continue to suffer, I’d argue it’ll be quite to the contrary for Depp.
Currently enjoying life to the full on a tour of Britain with guitarist Jeff Beck and singer Sam Fender and clearly making the most of life, the Pirates of the Caribbean star is now £6.66 million ($8.35 million, €7.81 million or درهم30.67 million) richer and deservedly headed to a pub in Newcastle to neck a pint or ten last night.
‘Anxious Amber,’ meanwhile, may now feel “disappointment,” but in falsely claiming this verdict “sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated.” Instead of accepting the decision and moving on, she ludicrously whinged:
“I believe Johnny’s attorneys succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of Freedom of Speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the UK.”
“I’m sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American – to speak freely and openly.”
Ending with a far more dignified statement, Depp simply concluded:
“The best is yet to come and a new chapter has finally begun.”
“Veritas numquam perit.”
“Truth never perishes.”
It is now time for Amber Heard to be dragged back to Britain and charged with perjury for the clear lies she told at the Royal Courts of Justice; it is now time also to remember that Johnny Depp – who showed his positivity and unbeat personality in saying: “Life’s pretty good, and why wouldn’t it be? I’m a pirate, after all – is a talented man who deserves to once again be left to focus on treading the boards.
On Twitter, Nick Adams joined the vast majority in rightly concluded that this was a victory “for all men who have been wrongfully accused of sexual assault.”Others amended the statement of the haranguer Heard and called her out for what she genuinely, truly, most definitely is – an out and out liar.Mocking the likely next chapter for the mendacious minx, one website suggested this decidedly deviant’s net worth now to be -$10 million. Her career deservedly in tatters, her reputation in ruins and her future prospects panned, here is someone who should have long ago learnt the art of silence. Instead, here was an attention seeker with more front than Brighton who finally got what she deserved. It is time for this wicked woman to now disappear.
As estranged half-sister of the Duchess of Sussex demands £60,000 from her for defamation, we remind the ‘Modern Day Mrs Simpson’ that she’d do well to heal her familial rifts in private
This morning, the Mirror’s Patrick Hill revealed the “latest twist in a bitter legal row between siblings Meghan [the Duchess of Sussex], 40, and Samantha [Markle], 57” has come “days after Meghan filed a 27-page court bid in Tampa, Florida, to dismiss a defamation case brought by Samantha, who wants £60,000 damages.”
Jamie Alan Sasson, a lawyer representing Samantha Markle, told the paper:
“Our intention is to take this case to a jury trial. I feel confident we’ll get past the motion to dismiss. We expect to start taking depositions in this case within the next six months.”
Responding previously on 13th May, the Duchess of Sussex’s lawyer countered:
“This is a defamation case without any merit.”
Referring to PR peddler Omid Scobie’s tawdry tome, they went further and added:
“The authors of Finding Freedom made the statements, and there are no allegations – nor could there be – that Meghan wrote that book or otherwise controlled its composition and editing.”
Frankly, this latest episode reflects very badly on drippy Prince Harry’s American wife. If she had an ounce of sense, instead of continuing this row, this audacious actress would organise a meeting with her estranged father and siblings and put a stop to this charade for once and for all. Instead, by continuing this toxic familial war, all the duchess does is add fuel to the fire and simply shows herself to be what one Twitter user accurately termed a “self-centred, self-serving attention whore.”
Pictured top – The snarling and selfish Duchess of Sussex (right) faces a demand for £60,000 for allegedly defaming her sibling Samantha (left).
Which of these mouthy minxes would you most like to see disappear into obscurity? Which one would you most like to no longer get news coverage?
This morning we asked the nigh on 13,000 followers of the @SteepleTimes account on Twitter: “Which of these mouthy minxes would you most like to see disappear into obscurity? Which one would you most like to no longer get news coverage?” Quite predictably, thus far with 22 hours to go, the vast majority of respondents have plumped for the Duchess of Sussex with Katie Price in second place, Rebekah Vardy in third and Amber Heard in fourth.
NEW: Lawyers representing Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and Samantha Markle had a telephone call yesterday to discuss the ongoing defamation lawsuit and Meghan's recent motion to dismiss the case.
"Counsel for the parties did not resolve any part of [the motion to dismiss]." pic.twitter.com/Q96yOXFnYP
The Duchess of Sussex is being “sued as ‘Meghan Markle’” in the case. It has been brought by her sister in the United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division.
Oh dear… better be careful…
The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dreaded Meghan. The Dre… pic.twitter.com/PdQVfQi4kY
— Charles_voice_mail (@Charlesvoicema1) May 20, 2022
Elsewhere, another court battle involving Prince Charles’ second son’s wife being called “the dreaded Meghan” is brewing away. It involves the academic Dr Anne Anderson and the Arts Society.In times past, the ever so conveniently forgetful former actress was happy to pose for pictures with her the sister she is now at war with both in the courts and via the media.Equally, the ever so conveniently forgetful former actress – a woman who clearly has trouble remembering how many times and when she got married – was happy to not only pose for pictures with her papa and to take his money to pay for her education also.The ambitious and audacious wife of Prince Harry would, however, like pictures such as this – and others far worse – erased from the Internet.
Elsewhere this week on ‘Palace Confidential,’ former senior palace aide Dickie Arbiter remarked of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex deciding to do another television series: “It smacks of desperation. It’s a bit rich, two people who left the UK, walked out of the Royal Family, because they wanted privacy, they’ve done nothing else but put themselves up front and a week doesn’t go by when there isn’t some sort of statement coming out of their PR people.”
As grubby grabber Ghislaine Maxwell is moved out of solitary, her bashful brother moans about those leading “a lynch mob against” the clearly evil convicted sex trafficker
Mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell, her soppy siblings and her pointless prattling PR peddlers do like to moan. Aside from telling clear porky pies in banging on about this witch having been subjected to “torture” in prison – yet never referencing the torture she so cruelly put the victims she was involved in the sexual abuse of – this wicked wastrel woman still has to learn the art of silence or develop the sense to say sorry.
With news that this creepy cretin is being moved out of solitary and into the general prison population – something the idiots still supporting this monstrous sex fiend and favoured daughter of a pension pot plunderer have been long demanding – one would have thought, finally, that the one-time lover of the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and he who paid £12 million to a woman he’d never met, Prince Andrew, might show some gratitude.
Instead, as is always the way with this mendacious Moaning Minnie, of course that was never going to be the case. Still housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, but no longer with a floor to herself, the former chief of the decidedly dodgy TerraMar Project will now have to accept her fate and learn to muck-in. Having been to boarding school, it wouldn’t be that hard, but the difficulty is that here is a woman whose arrogance frankly knows no bounds.
Yet again showing himself as completely out of touch with the public disdain for his spoilt sister, Ian Maxwell bleated: “There are nasty Internet trolls out there continuing to lead a lynch mob against her.” He then predictably wailed that her “once-close friends have only disowned her because of ‘cancel culture,’” the New York Post reported.
Previously, Scott Borgerson’s now unsurprisingly estranged wife has complained about the food in prison, wailed about being forced to clean the cell she made filthy with a broom and even barricaded herself in a cell in August 2021 just because – diddums – she was “forced to carry materials from her cell to the [prison] conference room.”
When not sharing stories about her playing “peek-a-boo” and making “monster moves” with prison officers – whom she variously contradictorily claims to have shared laughter with and variously contradictorily claims to have been abused by – this petulant paedo’s brothers, sisters and nutcase representatives continue to use their ridiculous @RealGhislaine Twitter account to pile yet more misery on those that she so sickeningly put through hell.
Aside from sharing a Daily Telegraph article about the prison move yesterday, on the 21st April, the deranged controller of the account put up a picture of the sea and shared: “The color [sic] of oxygen is blue. No Blue, No Life. Protect the Oceans.”
Naturally, the majority response was in the negative to both tweets. Of the ocean related tweet, one user asked: “Is that where you buried the kids that did not survive you and Epstein?” whilst another suggested: “The oceans are full of sharks (other predators are available) and is STILL less dangerous than her.”
Responding to yesterday’s news, ‘Admiral Kevin III’ correctly surmised: “Quick tip for anyone looking to avoid that fate: don’t be a horrific sex pest.” “We wish her well,” Max Greene amusingly concluded. Long may this heartless horror rot.
Pictured top – The French born 60-year-old convicted sex offender used to enjoy the high life with her evil associates including Jeffrey Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel. This evil abuser should jolly well now get used to the place where she will deservedly see out the rest of her days.
Matthew Steeples reviews lickspittle Jay Beecher’s ‘interview’ with mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother Ian and finds nothing but a pair of guffawing goons for the “evil moll” who crazily believe 25% of the jury in her case “may have lied”
Jay Beecher, recently sued by crusading journalist and writer Peter Jukes for libel, uploaded an ‘interview’ with the convicted sex offender and mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother Ian yesterday to YouTube.
In it, Mr Maxwell ridiculously alleges that 25% of the jury in his sister’s case lied in spite of a judge finding that even ‘Juror 50’s’ lone actions did not merit a retrial.
Mr Maxwell repeatedly insults Virginia Roberts Giuffre, clings to Alan Dershowitz beating her in his action against her and suggests Prince Andrew’s “panic” was the reason he paid millions to a woman he previously claimed to have never met.
The pension pot plunderer’s son calls out – without naming names – ‘former friends’ of his sister who’ve spoken with the media whilst the ‘interviewer’ hints at Lady Victoria Hervey telling porky pies in mentioning a Piers Morgan interview.
The deceased press baron’s son laughably slams the “red top press” for the way they were “biased” in their coverage of Ghisaline Maxwell’s case in spite of his own family having been just as biased towards others themselves when they owned the ‘Mirror.’
There are lickspittles – “fawning subordinates” – and then there’s the jaundiced joker that is Jay Beecher. A self-promoter and arse-licker who’d like to pretend he’s a ‘journalist’ who was sued for libeling the genuinely esteemed journalist, writer of Waking the Dead and co-founder of Byline TimesPeter Jukes in June 2021, this crackpot yesterday uploaded a feature he’d made with Ian Maxwell, a brother of the convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, to YouTube.
In an ‘interview’ in which the self-professed ‘interviewer’ just behaved like a toady turd, Beecher spoke with the mucky madam daughter of the pension pot plunderer Robert Maxwell’s brother about her trial, her failure to get a retrial, the BBC’s House of Maxwell documentary series and his thoughts on Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz and Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
Whilst, anything but a brainbox Beecher being anything but a brainbox Beecher, didn’t bother to challenge his swivel-eyed subject, he did bang on about how unfair everyone had been to the grubby sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.
During the 49:59-minute ‘exclusive’ Ian Maxwell blames everyone but his sister for what has happened. He compares her ‘plight’ to that of her one-time, also incarcerated sex offender chum Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby even. It’s all the fault of the Me Too movement that she’s where she is, if you’d believe him, and believing victims is clearly anathema also.
Mr Maxwell slams the judge in the case for not ordering a retrial because of the antics of ‘Juror 50’ ‘Scotty David’ as “deeply tainted.” “extraordinary” and “incredible” and argues “the dice were loaded by the court.”
Going further, of the “horrendous” conditions he believes his sister to be incarcerated in, Mr Maxwell bangs on about the UN and suggests that the prosecution portrayed his sister as an “evil moll” was “just grotesque.”
Giggling here and there and guffawing also too, Maxwell’s attack on the British press and its “red tops” comes over as especially laughable. His own father, after all, prior to emptying its pension pot of some £460 million, owned one and used it to attack his enemies and of the case in general he surmised:
“You know, it’s got sex, it’s got death. These guys dying, you know, erm, in prison. It’s got royalty, it’s got money, it’s got famous people, it’s got young girls. You know, it’s just got everything that you could dream of if you had to write up what elements would drive a story. They’re all there. Almost all of them are there, so, and you know it’s international and because we live in 24/7 times, this thing is going on at full pelt. It’s just catnip.”
“So it’s just a story that gives and gives and keeps giving and, of course, Ghislaine has quite a well-known name. Er, was well-known before she came on the scene and in this country you know, er, my father was, er, a large figure. Not perhaps so internationally so, but certainly so in Britain and also a press owner, so this is just very, very exciting.”
“And then, erm, it starts with that. The elements are all there and then you get a situation where on the back of Me Too, on the back of, er, this kind of situation where victims are to be believed, women are to be believed, what it means is that you’re never really going to get a proper shakedown of the other side of the story.”
“It’s not going to be presented in a way which is, er, er, fair and so the narrative, er, er, has been, has not been for Ghislaine. It hasn’t been about her, it’s been about her being negatively portrayed.”
“If you look at the film, if you look at the articles and whatever, that’s the position and the accusers have just come out in spades, er, to drive this and have been paid substantial amounts of money by Netflix and other such organisations.”
“Erm, to what, they aren’t going to stand there and say: ‘Our heart pleads for Ghislaine,’ they’re going to tell their story and because Ghislaine is incarcerated and has been for two years, she’s not been able to tell her story properly.”
Aside from also attacking the BBC’s recent House of Maxwell series on the basis that he believes it falsely suggests “the rotten apple never falls far from the tree” and that those that make such “lazy, inaccurate” programmes “don’t know” anything of the truth of his family, Ian Maxwell tries to dispel that his father met Jeffrey Epstein before his death. He argues: “You know, I mean, it is just ludicrous. Ludicrous.”
Of his decidedly deviant sister’s “former friends” giving interviews, after Jay Beecher has a pop at Lady Victoria Hervey’s interview with Piers Morgan (without naming her) and claims “she lied,” Mr Maxwell concludes:
“Can I finish like this and just to say that Ghislaine has hope and she knows she has a strong and supportive family. She has many friends despite how it seems.”
“All the so-called ‘former friends’ of Ghislaine who are busy helping the BBC make their programmes or Netflix are not, I don’t regard and I don’t think Ghislaine will ever regards them as ‘former friends.’ In some cases, they were not friends as you and I would regard them, but she has real friends who can’t come out and shout from the rooftops because of the cancel culture that we live in and they’re worried about their livelihoods and children and all the rest of it.”
“But we know who they are, they know who they are and so, Ghislaine knows who they are. And so, we have hope, we’re going to fight and that’s where it is so let’s pick this up in a few months time and maybe post-trial, post-sentencing or maybe next time when there’s a development, er, with the Dershowitz or whatever you like.”
Here is an ‘interview’ that is anything but challenging, but that’s what you’d expect of any ‘interview’ by Jay Beecher. Here, instead, is a depiction of a wicked wastrel who is both a “mucky madam” and an “evil moll.” Ian Maxwell does his sister no favours in attacking the court that convicted her and the victims of her crimes; instead, this silly, delusional mouse-not-a-man just shows himself up and lets his sister down. He does her no favours and frankly should give up being the family PR for one reason – he’s just no good at it.
Rotten-to-their-core and self-entitled, all that this ‘interview’ achieves is to yet again show the House of Maxwell to be akin to the House of Hell.
Pictured top – Son of a pension pot plunderer and apologist for a convicted sex offender Ian Maxwell (left) and the lickspittle who’ll say or do anything to please him and his soppy siblings, Jay Beecher.
Ghislaine Maxwell in happier times on 5th June 1991 at the Epsom Derby with the actor George Hamilton – who had just starred in the 1990 hit film ‘The Godfather Part III.’ Her father died just 153 days later on the 5th November 1991 and then she shifted her attentions from one monster, him, to another monster, Jeffrey Epstein.The mucky madam aboard the vessel her pension pot plunderer father named after her shortly after his death.In the 49:59-minute interview, shared on YouTube and watched just 209 times since being uploaded 24 hours ago, Jay Beecher sits on a leather office chair that one can only assume he thinks makes him look sophisticated. He barely interrupts his subject, Ian Maxwell, but when he does he simply exhibits the qualities of a shameless suck-up.
THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW
Featuring all that Ian Maxwell said, but with some of Jay Beecher’s comments cut out given he asks frankly irrelevant questions and simply tries to promote himself from lickspittle to a journalist without any qualification.
After an introduction from Jay Beecher, Ian Maxwell begins:
“Ghislaine made her position completely clear at the trial itself. She said the government had not proven its case. That’s what she said. That’s a fact. The only thing she did say and, erm, from her perspective that was the case. And from our perspective, ours too.”
“I mean and I sat through a number of days of that trial and that was my own view as well, so she was shocked, we were extremely shocked by the result and, er, declared straight away, er, that, erm, it was going to be appealed and, er, that that’s what’s happening.”
“So, I think, of course, er, initially, she was pretty down, as you would expect, but, erm, shortly after that, er, terrible night and result and so on, we then had this incredible development with this juror, er, who suddenly appeared in the media and demonstrated that his, er, own, erm, sexual edge, sexual abuse as a child, he had deployed it during the jury deliberations and, by his own words, swayed, er, jurors that were doubtful of what they’d heard.”
“So, obviously, at that point Ghislaine felt a lot more clear as to why the verdict came in the way it did.”
After Beecher interrupts and claims bias in the case, Maxwell continues:
“This has been going on, Ghislaine was arrested in July 2020. A judge met her shortly after that, rejected her first bail application. It’s coming up two years July 2022, er, countless defence motions have been denied or rejected or given short shrift, so I suppose, er, the result that has come here at one level it is not unsurprising given the court’s prior performance, but, erm, I think what is really shocking is the way in which the whole inquiry was set up.”
“Er, er, the judge had to set it up. The jury, the defence, er, requested that there was no need for an inquiry, prima facie, what had happened is that the man had lied on his form, erm, and therefore that the defence did not have the opportunity, had he been truthful to then ask him questions on that and either have him struck out by virtue of the parameter challenge that they were entitled to exercise, er, or by his answers, the court would have struck him out.”
“And, er, it is the denial of the defence’s opportunity to question that juror as a direct function of his lie that, er, that is the central appeal point and the, er, what happened then is that the court decided to set very, very narrow parameters as to who was going to question the juror, mainly the judge.”
“What were the questions going to be? Although she invited questions to be submitted both by the defence and by prosecution, ultimately she decided on those questions.”
“She decided that they would only be to this one juror and that they would only deal with two questions that he had answered by his own admission wrongly.”
“And the only reason we know he answered it wrongly is because that his initial reaction on the inquiry being ordered was to take the Fifth Amendment. That is to say, remain silent for fear of incriminating himself with his own words and that is tantamount of admission to what has gone on.”
“So how did the prosecution react to this? They offered him immunity. They talked to him and they offered him immunity.”
“The judge then, once he had admitted that he had not answered truthfully gave immunity at the start of this inquiry on the basis, of course, that if he was perjuring himself, he would go to jail. But, erm, given immunity, get out of jail, so, ha ha ha, there was no sanction, he could say what he liked and indeed he said exactly what he liked.”
“It was enough for the court to feel that notwithstanding that he’d admitted he’d lied, that somehow, er, he was not, er, a biased juror – whether actively biased or that bias could be inferred or assumed and all kinds of reasons that he put up. He was in a hurry, er, love affair had broken up, ha ha, ha, incredible.”
“The judge decided that this made him, erm, this wasn’t enough to, er, suggest that he couldn’t have been an impartial juror.”
“She took 40 pages, the court took 40 pages to justify this.”
“Amongst many shocking things in there, in the judgment I felt was one extraordinary statement that, I can’t remember exactly as I don’t have it in front of me, but essentially it said that one of the reasons that this inquiry came down the way that it did was to ensure the finality of judgments, but not the paramount interests of justice.”
“So, erm, to say we were shocked is to understand it clearly. Ghislaine was also very perturbed by it and we put out a statement to that effect.”
“If I had to summarise it, the dice were loaded by the court. The verdict, which was unsafe by virtue of this impartial, lack of partiality, or the partiality of the juror was the, er, the follow-up, er, ordered opinion and order of the court, er, is deeply tainted.”
“So, this is going to go to appeal and it’s just one of many points of appeal. Pre-trial, in-trial, post-trial and, er, we are confident that Ghislaine will be successful on appeal.”
“[Scotty David] is entitled to give to the press, but, er, what is really shocking is and what is as a direct result of what he said to the press, the judge had no option but to do something. She wasn’t going to lose the verdict. She put this inquiry and then, for the reasons that I’ve explained, I consider that it was really a foregone conclusion.”
After Beecher interrupted and moaned about jurors being allowed to watch television and go home and be unsupervised, Maxwell responds:
“I think I’ll give you two answers to that. Erm, firstly, it’s a tremendous burden on individual jurors that the courts are really mindful of, a huge personal burden, er, it’s like lockdown. That’s the way to think about it, er, except you haven’t got the telly, ha ha ha. So, erm, so it’s, they think twice before putting a jury into that sequestration.”
“It’s 9 times out 10, it’s to do with the fact that the jury could be, people in their community that could put pressure on them – especially in sort of mafia type trials and that kind of thing so judges tend not to do it if they can avoid it.”
“Erm, it so happened that, you know, I was on trial myself thirty years ago and my jury was sequestered and thank goodness because public opinion was really not in our favour at that time but at least that’s what happened.”
“So, I think that’s the answer to the first part of your question and on sequestration itself, as far as do I think that that may have had an impact on the trial, er, it’s possible, of course it’s possible.”
“Er, courts rely on juries integrity, honesty, if they say don’t consult papers, don’t look at television, don’t talk to your family, don’t talk to your friends, I am sure that most jurors abide by that, that’s the oath that they’ve taken and I think they do a pretty good job, OK.”
“I do think that we know that this juror was in communication with an Independent journalist who then broke the story of the interview with him in the Independent.”
“We don’t know when that interview took place or how, erm, the implication is obviously that it took place straight after the trial, but we don’t know, er, there might have been other times that we don’t know about maybe, er, we just don’t know enough. So, I can’t say one way or another, but it’s possible, of course, and it would have been very damaging.”
Beecher interjects:
JB: “It’s hard to get a completely impartial juror on a case like this… She was packaged as guilty before she ever set foot inside any courtroom”
He then asks about what else his subject considers “unfair” and Maxwell continues:
“To begin, ha ha ha, ha ha ha, the most compelling, er, er, er, reality was that this, my sister, has been banged up now, it’ll be two years in July.”
“Er, she is in horrendous and continues to be in horrendous, er, incarceration. She’s in isolation, she’s on suicide watch. She, er, continues to have torches shone in her eyes every 15 minutes to make sure she’s, er, breathing. Er, she’s denied all kinds of rights and opportunities, whether that’s in commissary or in books, whatever you like. Fresh air. It’s a shocker.”
“The most important thing, I think, is that she was already frail, mentally and physically at the start of her trial and I think this impacted for sure on whether she would give evidence in her own defence knowing what an aggressive and long affair that would have been.”
“Er, so I don’t know that was the primary reason, but I think it is a fair assumption. So the physical conditions, her physical state, her mental state, all of this, er, clearly, er, and of course we complained about it to the UN and that jury is still out there, er, but the, er, the UN committee on, erm, erm, can’t remember the name of the unit now, but these kind of conditions in a first world country are not acceptable.”
“They are not acceptable in our country, they should not be acceptable in America, but they appear to be. That first.”
“But second, er, it’s quite obvious and you mention it already, but the tremendous pre-trial, in-trial and post-trial, er, bias of the jury, of the erm media.”
“The media’s take on this from the get-go, which was encouraged on purpose by the prosecution when they held an infamous press conference the day of Ghislaine’s arrest and, er, and the prosecutor pointed to a picture of Epstein and my sister and, er, basically the implication was: ‘They’re guilty’ and then proceeded to come up out with a whole array of things.”
“This then gave open season on Ghislaine and it’s never let off and of course it’s not just the media themselves that have followed it up, but the numerous accusers who were not called in this trial have been very, very vociferous. The lawyers have been vociferous, none of this has been put to test, er, and it’s just drip, drip, drip, drip and that’s on a micro level.”
“On a macro level, you’ve got then the Me Too movement which has drawn enormous, you know, erm, erm, huge impact in numerous trials before Ghislaine’s whether it’s for Harvey Weinstein or Cosby or whatever, erm, which one of the central ideas of Me Too is that all women must be believed. All ‘victims’ must be believed. That’s how it starts, but we know, we know in this country that so-called victims turn out not to have been victims.”
“Carl Beech would be the finest example of that. In America, there was Duke lacrosse where a lady had accused a number of students of raping her. She was black, they were white. Turned out to be a complete fantasy, so these kind of things go on and jury verdicts have been overturned time and time again.”
“Obviously we hope this is going to happen on this occasion as well and then finally, er, the performance of the court, the judge in particular and the views she took pre-trial on various motions – the non-prosecution agreement, very controversial.”
“Controversially, she rejected the, that was the basis Bill Cosby was released because the state had not stood up on its side of the bargain on prosecution of Cosby and yet, erm, Ghislaine’s case is just thrown out.”
“Er and then in-trial, er, numerous directions were given to the jury that were inappropriate and wrong – just as a matter of law.”
“So, all of these are going to form, you know, part of a powerful, er, package of appeal points. You know, not obviously immediate, so it’s not, it’s to do with the law, but there are some powerful legal points, but I’ve just given you a few of them.”
“For me, er, it showed that this trial really was not fair and on top of that comes the revelation of the lying juror and there may well have been others.”
“The New York Times we know had reported itself to say it had a juror, but then refused to say who it was or what they’d done.”
“The court had another juror write to it and say: ‘What’s going on there?’ so we don’t know. You know, ha ha ha, we could have 25% that shouldn’t have been on there, on the jury.”
Moving on, Beecher asks Maxwell: “How do you now perceive the American justice system?”
“Look, I’m not an expert on the American justice system. I can only say that it seems to me that it is enormously tilted in favour of the prosecution.”
“From the Grand Jury process to the fact, er, that consistently free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment are not, er, somehow trump individual rights of pre-trial detainees or defendants.”
“Er, and you know even small things. So, for example, in our case, in the British system, the defence has the last word. In the American system, the prosecution has the last word. So, in other words, the defence makes a powerful appeal and gives the time for the prosecution to make its points and come back again.”
“Just physically, the prosecution is closer, just closer physically to the jury than the defence is in the American courts. In the British court, the defence is closer, so lots of little points here and there.”
“You know, there was no possibility in an English system that the prosecutor would have been able to hold the press conference and basically say this woman is guilty before any evidence had been presented and any trial had taken place.”
“So, whether it’s the way that we patrol the media so that once a, er, case is on-trial or is held within the legal system, that’s it. You can’t interfere with it; you can’t report it, you can’t, er, you know, you can the bare facts. Someone’s on trial, whatever, but you can’t have the kind of thing that has gone on with endless, endless programmes.”
“You know, you know, where Ghislaine is depicted as some evil moll. It’s, ha ha ha, just grotesque.”
“So, to my mind, this system is, needs to be, er, have a bit of fairness injected into it. I am not quite sure how that’s going to happen, but I am damn certain it hasn’t happened in my sister’s case.”
Turning to media coverage of the case, Beecher asks:
“How do you think the British and international press have covered the accusations made against your sister and what influence do you think they’ve had with regard to public opinion? … I’ve seen it myself, she’s completely demonised.”
Maxwell responds:
“Well, erm, it’s, from the start, the process, it has been, where, erm, I mean. First of all, it’s a case that has got everything that newspapers, especially popular newspapers or ‘red tops’ over in Britain love.”
“You know, it’s got sex, it’s got death. These guys dying, you know, erm, in prison. It’s got royalty, it’s got money, it’s got famous people, it’s got young girls. You know, it’s just got everything that you could dream of if you had to write up what elements would drive a story. They’re all there. Almost all of them are there, so, and you know it’s international and because we live in 24/7 times, this thing is going on at full pelt. It’s just catnip.”
“So, it’s just a story that gives and gives and keeps giving and, of course, Ghislaine has quite a well-known name. Er, was well-known before she came on the scene and in this country you know, er, my father was, er, a large figure. Not perhaps so internationally so, but certainly so in Britain and also a press owner, so this is just very, very exciting.”
“And then, erm, it starts with that. The elements are all there and then you get a situation where on the back of Me Too, on the back of, er, this kind of situation where victims are to be believed, women are to be believed, what it means is that you’re never really going to get a proper shakedown of the other side of the story.”
“It’s not going to be presented in a way which is, er, er, fair and so the narrative, er, er, has been, has not been for Ghislaine. It hasn’t been about her, it’s been about her being negatively portrayed.”
“If you look at the film, if you look at the articles and whatever, that’s the position and the accusers have just come out in spades, er, to drive this and have been paid substantial amounts of money by Netflix and other such organisations.”
“Erm, to what, they aren’t going to stand there and say: ‘Our heart pleads for Ghislaine,’ they’re going to tell their story and because Ghislaine is incarcerated and has been for two years, she’s not been able to tell her story properly.”
Turning to his favourite phrase of “fact checking” – something he ain’t particularly good at given the situation he created with his ludicrous nonsense about Peter Jukes – Beecher remarks:
“The accusers are allowed to say anything they possibly want without it being fact checked… They seem to focusing on fiction.”
“Last time, we had a nice chat about yourself and your father. Obviously, your father was a very influential figure. He had lots of positives about him, obviously instilled that in yourself.”
“The documentaries are flooded… Mainly focused on sensationalism, unsubstantiated claims, etc. The most recent one was the BBC’s the ‘House of Maxwell’… Why do they keep focusing on your father despite him having absolutely nothing to do with Ghislaine’s trial?”
Maxwell answers:
“Well, let’s just, er, the ‘House of Maxwell’ is, er, the executive director of that is a man called Colin Barr with form as far as my father is concerned. He put out a film, a drama starring David Suchet, I think 12 or 13 years ago.”
“Er, so that’s not the first time he has visited this subject. Erm, personally, I thought the earlier effort in 2007 was in some parts laughable. So badly wrong was it factually and the way they set out to depict things.”
“Erm, I think this is, it looks to me like it is, like, erm, more effort has gone into it, but, er, as far as, erm, my father’s concerned, the, there has been an, er, thread in the whole, er, whole business of, er, his whole case, where they, it, er, wanted to, the press, the media, to come up with a rather, er, simplistic view that, er, because my father was, er, considered a bad man, er, that the apple, the erm, rotten apple never falls far from the tree.”
“And therefore, ha ha ha, let’s try and make this link between my father and Ghislaine to such an extent that he’s, you know, a short shrift and she’s given a much bigger, ha ha ha, much bigger role, er, than the reality of their relationship.”
“And, you know, I don’t happen to particularly believe that she was my father’s favourite, but everybody insists that was the case even though they don’t know.”
“My father’s been dead thirty years and they don’t know my sister, but infer that because he called the boat the Lady Ghislaine, it must mean that she was his favourite.”
“You know, I was there the day that the boat was christened physically. It was in a shipyard in Holland somewhere, Amsterdam, and, erm, it was delightful.”
“It turned out to be the Lady Ghislaine and my father said to my sister: ‘Before you get any ideas, I wanted to call this boat the Lady Elizabeth for your mother, but that name was already taken and you can’t have two boats with the same name.’ So that was the end of that.”
“Anyway, so that, that’s the truth about that particular nonsense and, erm, it’s just a sort of shorthand way of saying: ‘He was bad’ and ‘She’s bad’ and, you know and somehow the brothers got off in the middle of it. Ha ha ha. You know, otherwise we’d all been bad.”
“So, it’s lazy, it’s inaccurate and as far as the other so-called revelations of the ‘House of Maxwell.’ Well, you know, another one is that my father allegedly met Epstein before he died and that’s how the connection of Ghislaine is established and there’s some idea that somehow pension funds were siphoned off and Epstein then laundered them. You know, I mean, it is just ludicrous. Ludicrous.”
“Erm, anyway, it makes for very good television I am sure and, er, no doubt the BBC will sell it very successfully.”
“But you notice that not one member of my family took part in this film and, in fact, there were very few people that I regard as having some input who could have said something interesting and I thought one or two of the people that did speak, I thought were truthful and did a good job – but they weren’t particularly speaking about Ghislaine.”
“So, my, I don’t think this was one of the great, the BBC have not covered themselves in glory here.”
“As for other, er, films and so on, I mean, you know, the Netflix, in particular stand in my book, very low, er, in my esteem because they just presented a completely one shot, one dimensional, one point of view, er, and, you know, and they’re just wrong.”
Beecher pipes in and speaks about “eerie music” on Maxwell documentaries and offers:
“The ITV and even Piers Morgan interviewed a ‘very close friend of Ghislaine,’ erm, who you know, gave these long accounts. She wasn’t questioned, wasn’t fact-checked. We later found out she had no relationship with Ghislaine whatsoever.”
“When I contacted her to ask why she lied, erm, she said no, blah blah blah. ‘I did know Ghislaine’ and in the end I said: ‘Look, I can prove, we already know it’s already come out, you did not speak to Ghislaine. You did not know her’ and then she said: ‘I wasn’t in it for the money.’”
“You know, anyway, her next statement to me was: ‘OK, I admit, you know, I had no relationship with Ghislaine. Erm, I’ll happily do the interview, how much are you going to pay me?’ So…”
Maxwell bounces back:
“Yes, ha ha ha, so.”
Turning to Virginia Giuffre, Beecher asks: “Why wasn’t she chosen to give testimony in Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial?” and Ian Maxwell answers:
“My own view of that is because, I think, you know, they realised she’d have a very difficult time under cross-examination and that she could have done more damage than have helped the prosecution’s cause.”
“It stands to reason, er Jay, that if you have a powerful witness who you believe is telling the truth and whose combination of the truth and the way they can tell that truth. Sincerely, hand on heart, look the jury in the eye and say ‘this happened to me and I did this or I did that,’ you’re going to use that person because it’s going to be very effective.”
“The fact that they didn’t, not use her, tells both of us all we already know. They could not stand her up under cross-examination because of the tremendous, multiple inconsistencies in her prior accounts on, er, almost every subject for years.”
“That is why, I believe, they did not run with this particular witness.”
Jay Beecher interjects:
“I am the only who has covered it [a suggestion regarding Paris Hilton’s father Rick Hilton], yet Prince Andrew still settled the lawsuit.”
Ian Maxwell continues:
“Look, erm, I suppose, we’re never really going to know because he’s Prince Andrew and it’s all, erm, been swept away.”
“However, this is the Jubilee Year of his mother. He is a dutiful son. This really caused, causes her, it’s obvious, any mother, it must cause her immense pain.”
“He’s just exceptionally embarrassed. He doesn’t want to do anything to upset that year. Er and I think that he had to fold his tent. Really, er and er, do the best he could by the Crown.”
“Er, ah, do I think that he wished he’d gone, gone the other way and given evidence, I don’t know. I think he would not been, I think it would have been a very difficult evidence for him to have give.”
“We know that he’s, you know, we have the example of his performance at his Emily Maitlis interview in, erm, 2019, so he’s not good in that kind of one-on-one situation and in a court where he’s fighting for his life, it would have been very difficult.”
“However, I also think that, er, the, er, it would have been just as difficult for Giuffre as it would have been for him. I mean, you know, he said produce the original of the infamous photograph in, er, London, where allegedly the events that she says happened, er, and, er, she couldn’t produce it.”
“Never been able to produce that particular photo, so at one level I suppose it suited both parties that ultimately it went the way that it went. Erm, but I think, erm, I think, erm, that he, erm, he may well have wished to take his chance and, erm, you know he may have got home on it, but he had to fold his tent and that was that.”
Beecher remarks:
“Virginia’s team were going to the press and saying they would depose Meghan Markle… She accused 18 people. This is the only person she took to court for money.”
Maxwell responds:
“I think [Prince Andrew] is a relatively, certainly very high-profile target and, er, so on. You know, but I mean, er, erm, but we’re just not going to know how this has came the way it came and, er, I think it is panic.”
“I think it’s very interesting that he ended up paying, er, what seems like a large amount of money to her non-profit – which is, er, which is, er, unusual. I think that happened the way that it did, maybe she didn’t want to have too much money coming to her personally because it makes her rather wealthy and attackable by other parties, but we’ll never know.”
Beecher pontificates:
“That’s a good point”
Maxwell continues:
“The key to this is going to be, er, the fact that [Virginia Roberts Giuffre] is facing a court case from one of the men that she is alleged to, er, alleged to be abused by namely Professor Alan Dershowitz, the American lawyer.”
“Now, he’s not letting go and he’s not settling up. His reputation has been trashed and he’s determined to have her deposed and put in the court. So, it’s quite obvious if that happens and I think it will, logically it will happen, that and she is, er, unable to deal with the questions that are posed by Mr Dershowitz and it turns out that he wins his case, then I think she is in trouble.”
“And I think, at that point, those inquiries of her could, maybe should be undertaken. So, I think the jury is out on this lady and, er, let’s see how it plays out.”
Victim shaming, Beecher comments:
“It has already proven that [Virginia Roberts Giuffre] has lied and made false allegations.”
Clinging to straws, Maxwell offers:
“[If Virginia Roberts Giuffre is proven to have lied], I think it will have to be reported and people will have to reconsider their positions and the, erm, and, of course, she wasn’t a witness at my sister’s trial, but then if what you [Jay Beecher] happens, actually comes to happen, that’ll, it’ll show why she was never called as a witness.”
“Whether that can then be used in any appeal process, erm, I don’t know enough about the law. However, there was also the matter of perjury that my sister was accused with at the civil action against Giuffre – which is still hanging and which may potentially be dismissed and as a result of which any findings against Miss Giuffre could well be dismissed for good, we don’t, it’s too far out.”
“But I, I would expect that all these matters are ultimately, will come out in the open sometime in the remainder of this year and in the early part of 23.”
Beecher whines:
“A lot of this would already have have been out there if the press had done their job and reported facts from both sides of the argument.”
“Social media dominates the narrative and it’s a massive thing and people can often act with the mob-like mentality. I’ve seen your account your account, the @RealGhislaine account run by your family, it’s a siblings of Ghislaine, it’s been attacked constantly.”
“I get attacks, nothing in comparison to yourself but what sort of abuse have you and your family received?”
Maxwell answers:
“Well the thing about social media, I don’t need to tell you, is, erm, those people that choose to write foul things and horrible ideas and they want to kill you are anonymous so it’s very easy to say anything you like as long as your name is not going to come out and so we’ve had quite a bit of that, ha ha ha, kind of abuse.”
“You know, the family might put a statement out or I might make an interview like this and that interview is taken out and if you look at all the social media comment on it, it’s, ha ha ha, makes pretty tough reading without a doubt.”
“That comes with the territory and, erm, so I just roll with it. I don’t think my brothers and sisters have been individually called out.”
“I happen to be the member of the family that has had to have had media duties to carry out in connection with Ghislaine so I have been more called out by these trolls than anyone else, but, erm, otherwise, that’s it, I’ve had no physical threats and so on.I consider myself quite fortunate.”
“Ghislaine, of course, has been the subject of immense, terrible, terrible social media comments – some of which has been shared with the police and so on as it’s just that bad.”
Answering of the current situation, how Ghislaine Maxwell is and whether he is worried about his sister, Maxwell observes:
“I think we all have to be worried about [Ghislaine Maxwell’s current situation and health] as she’s now been banged up two years coming and she’s had this terrible rollercoaster.”
“Arrest, she lost three bail and four, five bail applications and consistently turned down for reasoning which is really just wrong. Just because the court was not gonna [sic] find itself on the wrong side of public opinion and, er, so she’s really had a dose of it.”
“The way in which treatment has been dished out in jail has been really shocking. Notwithstanding all of that, through her lawyers who are in daily contact with her and daily video calls with her, that she remains resolute. She is determined, er, to see this through. She believes in, er, innocence completely of the charges that she faces here. Notwithstanding the verdict and she’s getting on with preparing her appeal.”
“Obviously the next thing that is coming is sentencing on the 28th June. It’s about 50 days out from here and, erm, I obviously, we’re not holding our breath that there’s not going to be some incredibly savage sentence I suspect, but nor is she.”
“But we are absolutely determined that justice will prevail for Ghislaine and that however unpopular that it is and however much it is, the counternarrative to the prevailing narrative, er, may be to peoples’ ears who don’t want to hear it, this is about the justice system doing what it should do and, er, and, er, that’s the basis of why we have appeal courts and we may have to go to the Supreme Court.”
“There are big, big issues involved here and I can just close by saying that the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers in American, the NACDL, a really serious body comprising forty or fifty thousand lawyers for the defence in the United States, highly unusually, weighed into this case, er, right at the depth of it.”
“Er, just before the inquiry into Juror 50, which we discussed earlier, to say that, to ask permission from the court to be involved and to be able to put a statement down and that statement said broadly this: ‘That, er, that it’s very unusual for the NACDL to get involved at the, erm, District Justice level, normally it only ever deals with Appeal or Supreme Court – where issues of real importance are being decided upon, but because this issue chosen by this judge to decide whether or not a juror had been impartial or not was so fundamental to the justice system, they chose to get involved at the District level.’”
“And they said in their brief, that given what had happened in the words of the juror, no one was interpreting, what he had said himself that he did and said during the deliberations, meant that the trial had been structurally lost. That’s a powerful statement, so regardless of what this court has decided and on the basis of which it has decided, we are confident that on that central point of the appeal and not to mention the many others that comprise the full appeal that Ghislaine will be successful and she will be, whether we end up with a retrial or indeed that she’s cleared and cleared in the sense that the non-prosecution agreement, erm, that she was, erm, benefitted from was, erm, wrongly interpreted and that’s the end.”
“Can I finish like this and just to say that Ghislaine has hope and she knows she has a strong and supportive family. She has many friends despite how it seems.”
“All the so-called ‘former friends’ of Ghislaine who are busy helping the BBC make their programmes or Netflix are not, I don’t regard and I don’t think Ghislaine will ever regards them as ‘former friends.’ In some cases, they were not friends as you and I would regard them, but she has real friends who can’t come out and shout from the rooftops because of the cancel culture that we live in and they’re worried about their livelihoods and children and all the rest of it.”
“But we know who they are, they know who they are and so, Ghislaine knows who they are. And so, we have hope, we’re going to fight and that’s where it is so let’s pick this up in a few months time and maybe post-trial, post-sentencing or maybe next time when there’s a development, er, with the Dershowitz or whatever you like.”
As P&O is rightly slammed for its reprehensible Zoom sacking, ‘The Steeple Times’ interviews a sacked employee and joins those shouting “shame on you” at pain-in-the arse Natalie Elphicke MP
After disgracefully sacking 800 workers by Zoom this week and giving them just two hours notice to leave the vessels on which they had diligently toiled, the DP World owned shipping and logistics company P&O were quite rightly slammed as “modern day slavers” and “reprehensible disgraces.”
A now former employee of this now deservedly hated firm – which has decided to replace their hardworking and loyal staff with far cheaper agency workers and which also took claimed £10 million in furlough cash during the coronavirus lockdowns – told The Steeple Times on Thursday of her shock at the way in which she and her colleagues had been treated.
Now redundant Kent based Karen Bridle remarked:
“We were short-crewed for the last week, but expected to work normal service. We could not cope and something seemed odd.”
“They could have told us yesterday so we could have collected our belongings, but the bosses cowardly waited until the old watch got off and a new watch got on. They ran the crew into the ground and I ask: ‘Why didn’t they tell us?’ Nobody knew, there were no rumours even.”
“We were told to login to Google Teams at 10.43am and I thought: ‘How can you treat people like this?’ The waffle of the head of internal relations and employee relations at the ferry operating company was shocking; what an awful man.”
“I’m shell-shocked and blindsided, but it’s P&O over and over again – disloyal to their crew.”
With commentators asking if the sackings are legal even given the lack of the standard consultation period of 45 days for redundancies of more than 100 employees and questioning whether the firm followed the “basic fundamentals of employee relations,” this matter is far from over and legal challenges will now likely quite rightly follow.
Elsewhere yesterday, the replacement MP for Dover for her convicted sex offender ex-MP husband Natalie Elphicke turned up at a protest in support of the mistreated now ex-employees. The Conservative harridan – known for her nastiness and negativity towards immigrants and bombastically blithering love of Brexit – expected to get involved and be welcomed. Instead, the crowd unsurprisingly turned on her and after she ended up having a pop at them, she did a cowardly about turn and departed looking like a total plonker.
Today, The Steeple Times makes an alternative suggestion about redundancies at the firm and that is that the only two employees of P&O that actually need to go are the Zoom disaster area that spoke on Wednesday and the CEO Peter Hebblethwaite. Instead, now, it is time for this Dubai owned operation to reinstate all of its wronged workers if they wish to avoid further humiliation.
Pictured top – A now not-going-anywhere for the moment P&O vessel and wife of disgraced ex-MP, ‘Naughty Tory’ and convicted sex offender Natalie Elphicke MP being heckled at a protest in support of P&O workers. “Shame on you” was meant to be chanted about P&O, but with this nasty piece of work’s arrival, they turned those very words on this reprehensible piece of toerag.
Natalie Elphicke MP – a stunningly stupid woman who once ludicrously suggested “border issues at Dover were not a problem created by Brexit, but were Brussels’ fault” – attempted to get herself a bit of positive publicity by joining a protest against P&O’s decision to rid itself of its staff. Her not so cunning stunt utterly and truly backfired when those present turned on the Tory twerp given she’d previously voted in support of fire and rehire policies.Their arrogance knows no bounds – The DP World owned shipping company’s head of internal relations and employee relations (left) and CEO Peter Hebblethwaite. A pair who are definitely in the running to be on ‘The Steeple Times’ Villains of 2022 list.William Hague and Prince William with DP World chief executive Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem at Expo2020 in Dubai. DP World has given Prince Charles’ son’s Earthshot Prize a donation of £1 million, but now the royal rightly faces calls to return this money.Former chief crown prosecutor for North West England Nazir Afzal OBE rightly tweeted of Mrs Elphicke’s humiliation: “The lovely moment when join in the ‘Shame on You’ chant and then realise it’s about you.”‘The Tortoise’ took an alternative view on the sackings and suggested it was a moment for revenge on Britain by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum over his treatment at the High Court in London last year.Brexit tinbangers at the ‘Express’ naturally had to place blame on the French and the EU over the decision. You can always rely on a paper that employs Richard Madeley to totally misunderstand the mood of the nation.
In giving “right snob” Lady Victoria Hervey airtime “deeply unpleasant” peddler of poison Dan Wootton brought new shame on GB News; elsewhere deranged “Devil’s Advocate” Alan Dershowitz’s rant about acknowledged victim of sex trafficking Virginia Giuffre just proves he’s onto yet another sticky wicket
That acceptance, however, was not enough for the noxious nitwit that is the daughter-of-a-thief Lady Victoria Hervey – a wastrel wack job previously shamed for running a nasty knicker flogging boutique in Knightsbridge that closed with debts of £350,000 and for stating “f*ck BLM” in spite of her ancestors having been abolitionists – and still now she’s peddling piffle and claiming that the victim now known as Virginia Giuffre is a “scam artist” who is “playing you all for fools” and “deserves” a “prison cell full of rats.”
Last night – in an utterly disgraceful move that shows GB News well and truly as a channel suited only for the spreading of crackpot conspiracy theories – the “deeply unpleasant” Dan Wootton furthered this outrage by inviting the thick toff “you’ll never see on Mastermind” that is known in some circles as ‘Lady Herpes’ onto his show and giving her airtime to parade yet more of her poison.
Featuring this birdbrained batshit bonkers berk’s trademark “you knows” and “ums” and “ers” – which indicate only how truly mentally challenged this nasty piece of toerag who also believes Ghislaine Maxwell to be a “scapegoat” truly is – in a diatribe of disgrace lasting 10 minutes or thereabouts, grubby grifter Lady Victoria claimed Prince Andrew “wanted to prove his innocence in court.” She added that she believed he was “pressurised” by his family into settling for a “mixture of reasons,” yet couldn’t quantify what those reasons might have been. No surprises there.
Going further, this pugnacious party crasher told Wootton: “It was a setup over twenty years… Of course, it’s financially motivated. As soon as [Giuffre] runs out of money, she’s suing someone else and she’ll probably do it again. There will be another story when she blows this money… I think she’s shown her real colours… I hope Prince Andrew can put these false allegations behind him.” As was the case with Maxwell, when asked if she’d spoken with the prince, this threesome loving fruitcake most curiously declined to comment.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, Alan Dershowitz took to Rumble to join in the firestorm and also had a pop at Virginia Giuffre. After banging on about the unfathomably dumb Sarah Palin, this lawyer – who has, without showing an ounce of shame, represented “taxes are only for the little people” believer Leona Helmsley and rapists including Harvey Weinstein and Mike Tyson previously and variously has described Giuffre as “serial liar,” a “prostitute,” and a “bad mother,” who could not be believed “against somebody with an unscathed reputation like me” – bleated of a lady taking him to court for defamation: “She was pressured into accusing me.”
Worked up like a crazed hyena on heroin, Dershowitz turned to Winston Churchill and stole a great quote from the revered politician: “A false story makes it halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on.” He then concluded: “There is absolutely no evidence in my case… [Virginia Giuffre] is a child trafficker [herself]… Now, my case becomes the big case because it is the only case left where Virginia Giuffre’s credibility can be tested… My hope is that everyone will agree that this was a made-up story. I have to fight and will continue to fight.”
Of the Internet, Alan Dershowitz himself once remarked: “There is a permanent record today, and it’s called the Internet… [It] knows no national borders.” Now, today, we must also remind him, Prince Andrew, Lady Victoria Hervey and Dan Wootton that their attempts to use the media to attempt to shame acknowledged victims of abuse will forever remain on permanent record. A curse on the houses of all four of these reprehensible ratbags.
“Devil’s Advocate” and “Demon of Evil” Alan Dershowitz’s not-so ‘finest’ moments…
On truth: “There are many levels of truth… The law is agnostic to the truth. It’s very sceptical of ultimate truth.”
On telling lies to the media: “There’s no federal crime that says it’s illegal to lie to the media.”
On convicted mucky madam sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell: “She must be presumed innocent.”
Asked about his one-time friend and client, the since croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein: “I’m a very strong supporter of the MeToo movement… I think of myself like a doctor or a priest. If they whell Jeffrey Epstein into the emergency ward, the doctor is going to take care of him… Every honest criminal lawyer will you that he defends the guilty and the innocent.”
On Virginia Roberts Giuffre (who he is currently in litigation with): “I have been falsely accused.”
On another victim of Jeffrey Epstein known simply as “A.H.”: “She, herself, has chosen to go by the nickname of ‘pimp juice’… [She has an] an apparent fascination with marijuana… and a long record of lying, theft, and blaming others for her crimes.”
On trials and truth (clearly said before considering his own situation and that of his old muckers Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell): “All sides in a trial want to hide at least some of the truth.”
On justice: “A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty… Well, you know, all law is about injustice.”
On famous people and justice: “Every celebrity… The one thing you can be sure of is they don’t get the same justice as everybody else.”
On judges: “[They] are the weakest link in our system of justice.”
On good and bad people (in spite of his associations with some truly repugnant individuals): “Good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell.”
On money: “I never do anything for money; I get paid a lot of money as a by-product.”
On guns: “It is bigoted to say guns are quintessentially American… There’s no evidence that I’m aware of that guns reduce crime.”
On what interests him most: “I’m not a single-issue person, but I spend so much time on Israel.”
On insane people: “Well, many insane people and seriously mentally ill people seem very reasonable.”
On those that dislike him: “I’ve thought of publishing a book of my hate mail, but I don’t own the rights to the letters.”
On how he lives: “I love discomfort. I mean, my whole life is discomfort.”
On his reputation: “My reputation is more important than my book.”
On whose views matter most: “I’m never satisfied unless I get the last word.”
Alan Dershowitz didn’t do a very good job of trying to not look decidedly deranged on his Rumble channel on Tuesday.Eton and Cambridge educated financier Euan Rellie accurately summed up Alan Dershowitz after the latter wrote an article for ‘Spectator USA’ about Ghislaine Maxwell in July 2020. Of the former lawyer of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, Rellie quite correctly observed: “This guy @AlanDersh is protesting way too much.”
Alan Dershowitz was played by Ron Silver in the spectacular 1990 American drama film ‘Reversal of Fortune’ with Jeremy Irons as Claus von Bülow (1926 – 2019) and Glenn Close as Sunny von Bülow (1932 – 2008). The 111-minute film grossed £12.3 million at the box office and was deservedly lauded for its “exceptional performances” and “cunning script.” At that time, he came across as a crusading advocate and decent man, but in the years since he’s clearly moved to the dark side.‘GB News’ presenter Dan Wootton is a deservedly disliked television presenter. Pictured here with the late Caroline Flack, here is an import into Britain that the country could clearly do without. There’s nothing good about him and there’s nothing British either.
“Deeply Unpleasant” Dan Wootton’s not-so ‘finest’ moments…
On Tatler magazine: “A repulsive… bible for the elite… that makes my skin crawl… Tatler should be shunned because of the vile way it perpetuates a class system that does so much damage to society. Not Quite Our Magazine, Darling.”
On Eurovision: “We are too cool for it, but I’ve got passion for it.”
On Dominic Cummings (who’d probably have preferred even Katie Hopkins as a defender): “Make no mistake, the establishment is out to get Dominic Cummings… I despair.”
On footballer David Beckham and his singer turned fashion designer wife Victoria (whose fans responded with fury): “Weird and creepy.”
On singer George Shelley (whose fans got equally upset): “[He’s] done a Tom Daley and come out as bisexual.”
On singer Susan Boyle (whose management hit back with denial): “Volatile… Forced to shop at Tesco and travel by bus.”
On political activist and Novara Media editor Ash Sarkar (before he “shut her down” during a “fiery conversation”): “Grasping.”
On Celebrity Masterchef winner Emma Kennedy (who reported him to Ofcom and threated to sue him with the help of Carter Ruck): “Deranged Boris hater.”
Lady Victoria Hervey would now do well to stick to hanging around with washed-up wannabes like Christabel Milbanke and disgraced television presenter Angus Deayton.Lady Victoria Hervey will never go down in history as a brainbox. Instead, she will be remembered as a peddler of piffle and for sharing sordid secrets of threesomes. She’d do well to shut her almighty trap and keep clear of ticketed business and parties that she would never in an eternity ever actually be invited to.
“Anything But A Lady… More Like A Slag” Lady Victoria Hervey’s not-so ‘finest’ moments…
On herself: “I’m not stupid. I’m not a dumb model… “[I aim to become] the next Kate Winslet – but with class… I’ve had Botox of course… I suddenly thought, I’m just Victoria Hervey… Horrible.”
Of her “past lives” in crackpot clear fashion: “I have had four past lives, three of them as a man. I was a composer in 17th-century Paris, I made materials in India and in Ancient Greece I was a famous politician. In Ancient Egypt I was keeper of the oils for the Pharaoh’s wife, and I love oils so it all kind of fits.”
On working: “I do have a day job… My career always goes much better when I haven’t got a man.”
Of other people and work and money: “What annoys me is when these families have got like 12 children and we’re paying for these kids… They work out that they make more money being on the dole than having a job, they just laze around… The real irony of this is that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.”
On what she drinks in Dawn Ward-like fashion: “Unless it’s champagne, I can’t handle it.”
On the Black Lives Matter movement (in spite of her ancestors being abolitionists): “F*ck BLM.”
On having children (thankfully she’s not yet had any): “A baby is very easy – you hand them over to a nanny… I’m kind of into star signs and I want my baby to have a sign that’s compatible with mine. It’s to plan though… We’ll just have to see… We’ll do the embryos and then I’ll figure out which month I’d like the baby to be born.”
On coronavirus: “I believe in natural immunity… It’s completely hyped! The biggest worldwide conspiracy that has ever happened… [Its’] Bill Gates’ goal to bring out this vaccine to depoluate the world. I’m not going to be a lab rat.”
On being told to wear a face mask: “I storm out of any shop [that asks me to put one on].”
Of Prince Andrew’s sexual antics: “At the end of the day, he’s only a man, and he’s male, right? I don’t think anyone can expect him to just be a monk in a monastery.”
On why even Jeffrey Epstein rejected her: “I was too old for Jeffrey Epstein… [He seemed] very charming… He was a very well-liked guy… Jeffrey was a very charismatic man.”
Of the one-time mates she happily took hospitality from: “Ghislaine and Jeffrey were like Batman and Robin.”
On why Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell invited her to their gatherings: “I was pretty much used as bait.”
On hanging around with paedophiles: “For me, it just seemed like fun at the time.”
Of why she falsely thought Ghislaine Maxwell was going to disappear forever: “I haven’t seen [Ghislaine Maxwell] since September [2018] at a friend’s baby shower… I don’t think anyone is going to find her. She’s gone far away. She’s a bit like a James Bond character. She’s quite a unique person and I don’t believe anyone is going to find her… I don’t think we will ever see her again, it’s going to be like Robert Maxwell continued; she will continue that family mystery.”
Of Ghislaine Maxwell after her conviction: “[Ghislaine] unfortunately now is a scapegoat. There’s no one else to blame… It is not quite as fair as it could be.”
On Virginia Giuffre: Amongst her many tiresome tirades against an acknowledged victim of sex trafficking, this privileged pillock – described by the by-contrast lovely, late fellow ‘It Girl’ Tara Palmer-Tomkinson as “unpleasant” and “a right snob,” – has remarked:
“This was about to go Live on Lorraine last week. Please can someone let me know what the age of consent is in the UK. I thought it’s 17. Some of these stories sound like a case study of Regret turning into Revenge. This story has been so blown out of proportion. Or has it. Nobody knows.”
“People are literally murdering people in LA and getting out of jail. It’s a real life gotham city blood bath. I know Ghislaine is obviously not a saint and should pay back the trauma caused to her ‘victims’ but lifetime in jail for touching a girls tit 20 years ago and taking them on yacht, private jet and shopping trips. Come on. This has become a witch hunt. Thoughts on this? What does she deserve?”
“And while I’m here I may as well let out some other thoughts. That Virginia Roberts is a complete whore. She was no innocent girl. At 15 she ended up in hospital with alcohol poisoning. She’s just a ghetto opportunist whose seriously mixed up. I really genuinely wanted to feel bad for these girls but the trial gave us nothing.”
“And yes, drinking yourself into hospital doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a whore but it shows how mentally unstable you are.”
“I just can’t with the sob stories. Virginia was a classified train wreck. She wanted to go on those trips. In fact she’d do anything to be invited. During the recent trial her friend said she texted her after prince andrew and was boasting about it. Money hungry girls like her do not help the real people going through human trafficking.”
“You cannot compare Virginia to the character in my friends movie totally different girl was literally kept in a cage. Virginia was living the high life. I’m so sick of these me too girls cashing in and ruining it for the girls that really do need help and are desperate that are being killed and tortured.”
“Basically, you cannot question a victim in today’s climate. So even though Virginia was of age and clearly became a co-conspirator herself, we in the public are not allowed to question her or her motives.”
“Would she be suing these people if they were broke and molesting her in a trailer park? Which by the sounds of things she was dropping her knickers in all sorts of places. I also knew one of the other ‘victims’ who was also a total money hungry drug addict slut and a f*ck up. I’m so over this.”
