Matthew Steeples to interview Karen Phillipps, author of the newly released ‘Get Carman,’ at 8th December discussion dinner in London; an account of the life and times of “Britain’s most feared lawyer” George Carman QC
“One has to express things in a way a jury finds attractive” and “it is not the duty of a barrister to find out the truth; that is for the jury” are two of the late, great George Carman QC’s most notable remarks. Now, with the publication of Karen Phillipps’s “gripping” new book, Get Carman, reminder of such again comes to the fore. As Carman himself concluded: “A barrister’s duty is to his client, to present his case as best as he can.”
On Sunday 8th November at PJ’s Chelsea Brasserie in London, SW3, Phillipps will be interviewed by Matthew Steeples about “Britain’s most feared and most famous lawyer in living memory” during the second in a series of ‘discussion dinners’ about lawmakers and lawbreakers. She will speak of her personal experiences with a legal titan she describes as “complex and private and yet not unsociable” and will explore cases including that of Sonia Sutcliffe v. News of the World, Elton John v. Mirror Group Newspapers, Jonathan Aitken v. The Guardian and Neil Hamilton v. Mohamed Al Fayed.
The Phoney Pharoh v. The Hamiltons – Of the case brought against him by Mohamed Al Fayed, Phillips remarks in ‘Get Carman’ of Neil Hamilton: “Neil was not bitter about George Carman’s triumph; in fact, he said he would have loved to have instructed him as his lawyer. He was in no doubt that George’s advocacy was very powerful and lost him the case.”
A YouTube video of Matthew Steeples chatting with Peter Bleksley and guests at the first ‘The Steeples’ ‘Discussion Dinner’ on 6th November 2024 at PJ’s Chelsea Brasserie in Fulham Road, London, SW3 was a huge success. We look forward to welcoming those who attended and those that didn’t on the 8th December to witness Matthew Steeples interview Karen Phillipps about her “gripping” new account of the life and times of George Carman QC.
The evening follows a rip-roaring first event on the candlelit mezzanine level at PJ’s on 6th November where renowned policing and crime expert and Talk TV Crime Suspect and Channel 4 Manhunt ‘Chief’ Peter Bleksley spoke of the toxicity that has enveloped policing and explored the public’s enthusiasm for the true crime genre. This time, guests will be able to ask Phillipps about not only the courtroom dramas and legendary “one-line zingers” that made Carman famous, but also learn of why, as Judge Rinder’s Rob Rinder MBE puts it, “the bad, the sad and sometimes the mad – would (if they could) do anything to get Carman.”
Famed especially for his remarkably and surprisingly successful defence of the disgraced former Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe – subsequently played by Hugh Grant in the BBC’s A Very English Scandal – it will be for bringing theatre to the English justice system that Carman will be long be remembered for and today we urge you to sign up to attend what will not just be a night to fascinate legal eagles, but also a riveting evening of festivity and fine dining.
Tickets to the evening are priced at £99 and include a delicious 3 course Christmas dinner and a glass of Prosecco and half a bottle of red or white wine per person. Book by clicking here on Eventbrite or should you wish to pay by direct bank transfer please contact [email protected] to receive the relevant sort code and account number to send to.
Copies of Get Carman – published by Biteback Publishing – will also be available to purchase and to be signed on the night for £25, cash only.
Soap Siren v. The Sun – During the libel trial she brought against ‘The Sun’ over a story about an alleged sex act in a Range Rover in January 1994, George Carman triumphed for the paper over the ‘EastEnders’ star Gillian Taylforth. When the verdict was announced the actress collapsed in what was described as a “Victorian swoon” and had to be taken away by ambulance.
George Carman’s Clients & Cases…
Coronation Street actor Peter Adamson.
Dr Leonard Arthur, a consultant paediatrician accused of killing a Down Syndrome baby.
Businessman Sir Richard Branson.
Actor Tom Cruise and his then wife, actress Nicole Kidman.
Comedian Ken Dodd.
Since disgraced business tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed.
Musician Sir Elton John.
British spy Geoffrey Prime.
Carole Richardson, one of the Guildford Four.
Disgraced former Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe.
The QC’s Most Famous Quotes…
On Ken Dodd: “Some accountants are comedians, but comedians are never accountants.”
On David Mellor: “Behaved like an ostrich and put his head in the sand, thereby exposing his thinking parts.”
On Sonia Sutcliffe, the wife of the Yorkshire Ripper: “She danced on the graves of her husband’s victims. She is a clever, confident, cold and calculating woman. She has sought to excite sympathy at every available opportunity in the witness box. The truth and Sonia do not make good bedfellows.”
On Jeremy Thorpe: “He is human, like us all. We learn – do we not? That idols sometimes have feet of clay.”
Sword of Truth v. Labour Luvvies – Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of ‘The Guardian’ (1995 – 2015), on receiving a writ from Jonathan Aitken remarked: “We’d better get Carman – before Aitken gets him.”Copies of the book, published by Biteback, will be available to purchase on the night.
Jane Monckton suggests enough is enough and argues it is time to close the investigation into the ‘disappearance’ of Madeleine McCann; focus funding instead on other missing people who can more likely be found
The Madeleine McCann case has been a fixture in public consciousness for 17 years. As a three-year-old who vanished from a Portuguese holiday resort on 3rd May 2007, Madeleine became a symbol of hope, horror, and heartache for a family – and a mystery for a global audience.
However, after years of an investigation riddled with dead ends, millions in public funding, and a recent disappointment in the acquittal of suspect Christian Brueckner in other totally unconnected cases, many are asking the same question: Why does this case continue? Who holds the real answers? And, is there anyone out there who actually knows what happened?
A costly obsession – Millions spent, few results
Since her disappearance, the hunt for Madeleine has become one of the longest-running – and shockingly costliest – missing persons investigations in modern history. In the UK alone, an estimated £14 million has been spent by the British government on Operation Grange, the inquiry dedicated exclusively to finding her. And what has this unprecedented spending achieved? Precious little, if anyone were actually honest.
The latest in a long line of “persons of interest,” German national Christian Brueckner, was initially paraded as a suspect by authorities. For years, he was presented as the ultimate suspect, with tantalising hints from investigators that finally, an answer was within reach. Yet, Brueckner was acquitted in another unconnected set of cases, and the public, once again, was left with the bitter aftertaste of a dead end lead. It begs the question: how much longer should this cycle of build-up and disappointment go on?
Red herrings and endless questions – Who knows the truth?
As the Brueckner debacle shows, the investigation has been marred by high-profile suspects who, in the end, turn out to be red herrings. Time after time, public interest is reignited with suggestions of “new leads,” only for hopes to be dashed. One can’t help but wonder: how many people out there actually know the truth? There must be individuals, witnesses, or former suspects who have held pieces of information for years – information that could bring the truth to light. Yet the silence remains deafening.
For instance, many people still believe that multiple individuals connected to Praia da Luz on that fateful night might hold valuable insights. The complex network of witnesses, staff, and even other guests at the resort has never fully been disclosed, creating an air of secrecy. Why hasn’t this circle been fully investigated? Are there people shielding each other, protecting reputations, or perhaps even benefiting from the ambiguity? How many know the truth, and why hasn’t it come out?
A media frenzy turned financial drain
The McCann case has also become a staple of tabloid speculation, with sensationalism often driving the narrative. This has led to endless news cycles, yet almost no new information. We hear about a “breakthrough” only for it to turn out to be irrelevant, as in the case of Brueckner. In the meantime, the families and friends who might genuinely be connected to the case but entirely innocent are hounded by the media and given no peace.
But beyond the voyeurism, there’s a real human cost here, as well. Imagine being a relative of the McCann family, constantly reliving the tragedy in the public eye. Or imagine being a potential witness or informant, wanting to come forward but stifled by the sensationalism. This relentless churn of media attention has not only stymied progress but has also created an environment where justice seems increasingly unlikely.
Has the McCann investigation become a money pit?
For those watching from the outside, it’s hard not to notice the amount of public funding channelled into the Madeleine McCann case. When Operation Grange was launched in 2011, the British government was already under pressure to solve the case once and for all. Yet, here we are, over a decade later, with little more than speculation, conjecture, and dead-end leads to show for it.
To put things in perspective, most missing person cases do not receive this level of financial support, let alone an ongoing operation involving a team of detectives exclusively dedicated to one case. This extensive use of resources raises uncomfortable questions. At what point does this pursuit, as heartbreaking as it may be, become a fruitless money pit? What are the limits of such an investigation, and who determines when enough is enough?
Christian Brueckner – The latest in a line of failed leads
Christian Brueckner, a convicted criminal in Germany, was publicly labelled as a major suspect, with authorities insinuating that the case’s resolution was closer than ever. For months, the public followed the hints and statements, believing this might be the moment of closure. And yet, with Brueckner’s recent acquittal in Germany in a separate set of cases, the Madeleine McCann case seems as lost as it did in 2007.
If Brueckner was, indeed, a red herring from day one – as many experts now believe – then why was he pursued so doggedly? Why was so much time and money invested in yet another dead-end? This latest misstep is emblematic of a larger issue within the investigation: a pattern of misdirection, fuelled by sensationalism, that leads nowhere. This mismanagement not only wastes resources but chips away at public faith in the investigation itself.
The human toll on the McCann family (and the public)
For the McCanns, the reality is one of endless agony and frustration. Kate and Gerry McCann, who once inspired global sympathy, are now met with mixed reactions, often due to the perception that the case has overshadowed other equally tragic disappearances. In many ways, the prolonged investigation has become a burden not only to them but also to the public, who are forced to confront the unsettling realization that justice may never come.
Every failed lead, every dead-end, only exacerbates the sense of helplessness and frustration. It’s no longer just about finding Madeleine; it’s about finding peace and closure for everyone involved. When millions are spent, and years are lost, the cost is emotional as much as it is financial.
Time for a conclusion – Is there a line between hope and reality?
While hope is a powerful thing, there’s a line between hopeful pursuit and futile obsession. The resources poured into the Madeleine McCann case could have been allocated to other families seeking justice, to other unsolved cases that lack this level of media attention and public funding.
If this investigation continues, should it be with a cap on resources? Should it be shifted to a lower priority? Should there be a different approach entirely – one that finally gives closure rather than more questions? These are uncomfortable questions, but they are necessary ones. It is, perhaps, time to consider the ethical limits of an investigation like this and the price we are willing to pay for an answer that may never come.
Who will end the silence?
The most pressing question of all remains: who knows the truth? With so many suspects, witnesses, and “people of interest” connected to Praia da Luz, it’s difficult to believe that no one holds a piece of this puzzle. Someone, somewhere, knows more than they’re sharing. But as years pass, the possibility of anyone coming forward diminishes. Whether out of fear, protection, or complicity, the truth remains hidden.
The question is whether the investigation’s resources might be better spent encouraging those with critical information to come forward. Perhaps a shift in focus from pursuing elusive suspects to encouraging testimony might be what’s needed now. Without genuine answers, the cycle of disappointment and dead-end leads will only continue.
Enough is enough – An end in sight?
For over 15 years, the world has watched the Madeleine McCann case spiral into a costly, complicated quagmire. Every new suspect, every promising lead, seems to end the same way—nowhere. The recent acquittal of Christian Brueckner in a separate set of unconnected cases underscores the painful truth: Despite the millions spent and years lost, we’re no closer to finding Madeleine than we were on that fateful night in 2007.
The time has come for a sober reassessment; not only of the investigation itself but of the resources and public interest invested in a case that has seen far more support than most.
The McCann family deserve closure, as do the many families whose missing loved ones will never receive this level of attention or funding. It is time for an honest reckoning, one that prioritises the truth over sensationalism, closure over endless searching for a child many believe will never be found. The world may never fully understand what happened to Madeleine McCann, but we can, at the very least, decide when to let this chapter close.
Jane Monckton has worked for ‘The Steeple Times’ since its inception in 2012. She has followed the Madeleine McCann case with interest and has come to be outraged that resources allocated to Operation Grange are not reallocated to help find missing people who she believes can actually be found. Follow her on Twitter at @Jane_Monckton.
A warped sense of priorities… Madeleine McCann on a tennis court prior to her ‘disappearance’ in May 2007 and her parents out running near the resort she ‘disappeared’ in the days after her ‘disappearance.’Living-it-up… Gerry McCann enjoying a round of golf (left); Kate McCann at Downing Street, London hobnobbing with Missing People CEO Martin Houghton-Brown, the Duchess of Gloucester and the then Home Secretary Theresa May on 23rd May 2012 (right).Brown nosing with a ragbag of rotten rubbish… Amongst those to have supported the McCanns have been especially gobby attention seekers including job wrecker Sir Richard Branson, “Chanel-clad” charity begins at home tin banger Baroness (Catherine) Meyer and her pompous arsehole late husband Sir Christopher Meyer and job wrecking grabber Sir Philip Green.Enough is enough – Missing still yet little to no police resources for their cases… Ben Needham disappeared in Kos, Greece on the 24th July 1991 aged 1 and his mother gets little help for her search; Martin Allen disappeared in London on 5th November 1979 aged 15 and though his brother, Kevin, keeps the case in the public eye as much as he can, he gets little to no help from the Metropolitan Police. Why won’t the police consider reallocating resources away from Operation Grange towards the search for other missing people? £14 million has been wasted for nothing, after all. What are they hiding?Pictured above – Since croaked paedophile Sir Clement Freud (right) lunched with Gerry (left) and Kate McCann in Praia da Luz in Portugal in July 2007, two months after their daughter’s disappearance. Mrs McCann later praised the risotto as “the best she’d ever tasted.” Pictured below – Ghislaine Maxwell pictured at the launch of a book about Sir Clement’s brother, Lucian, titled ‘Breakfast With Lucian’ in 2013 by Geordie Greig. Also in the image are Nicholas Coleridge, Piers Morgan, an unknown child, Geordie Greig and Ariadne Calvo-Platero.In 2009, private investigators for Gerry and Kate McCann issued an E-FIT to the media of a woman they believed could be “potentially significant” to their investigation. She has never been found, but, speculation online (entirely unproven as accurate thus far) has regularly included: “She looks remarkably like Ghislaine Maxwell.” There is no suggestion that this is one and the same woman, but it would be ever so helpful if the convicted nonce sex trafficker Miss Maxwell came forward and cleared this up for once and for all.
Missing Madeleine – Questions STILL without answers… £14 million wasted on Operation Grange… Why continue? Why waste more? Why not help others?
Many questions about what happened on the evening of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remain. Some that have been highlighted by the press and discussed online include:
Why did Kate McCann refuse to answer 48 questions put to her by the Portuguese police?
Why were certain records of phone calls on the evening of the disappearance “whoosh-clunked” from the memories of the phones of Mr and Mrs McCann and the ‘Tapas 7’?
Why were relevant mobile phone records never handed over to the authorities in spite of them potentially being useful to the search?
Why did the couple not use the babysitting service on offer in the holiday resort on the evening of 3rd May 2007 when they went out on the razzle dazzle with friends?
Why was the door to the apartment – which opened directly onto a public highway – left unlocked with three children aged under three years old alone inside?
Why did a British sniffer dog sense the smell of a corpse in a cupboard in the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared?
Why did a sniffer dog also supposedly sense the smell of a corpse in a vehicle hired by the couple a month after the disappearance of their daughter?
Why did the McCanns repeatedly try to discredit the work of the sniffer dogs and their handlers?
Why did Mr and Mrs McCann go jogging and play tennis in the days after their daughter’s disappearance?
Was it acceptable for Mr and Mrs McCann’s mortgage to be paid by the fund established to search for their missing daughter?
Why have the McCanns attempted to ‘gag’ anyone who disputes their version of events – most especially Gonçalo Amaral?
Why, given over £14 million has been spent on this search to date, has nobody come forward with any sighting of ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann given the very, very substantial rewards on offer?
Enough is enough – In December 2017, when £11 million of British taxpayers’ money had been spent towards the search for ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann, 86% of viewers of ITV1’s ‘Loose Women’ said the public purse should cease to fund the investigation. Now, in January 2023, with that sum now well in excess of £14 million (aside from the millions in private money also), it is time to allocate resources to the search for missing people who actually can be found, we would suggest. Shouldn’t 2024, when many suffer because of the cost-of-living crisis and many others remain missing without financial assistance for the search for the them, be the time that this pointless waste of funds finally ends?
Matthew Steeples on discussing the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence fifteen years ago in York on TalkTV’s ‘Crime Suspect’ with esteemed former detective Peter Bleksley
Aired first on TalkTV’s terrestrial and YouTube channels on the 5th April, the 21:22-minute version on the latter has been viewed nearly 130,000 times to date and focused on the key question: “Could there still be someone out there who knows what happened to the 35-year-old chef?”
Aged just 35 at the time she disappeared into thin air on either the night of 18th March or the morning of the 19th March 2009, here is a case in which North Yorkshire Police – to date – have performed over 48 video recorded interviews under caution, but come to utterly no conclusion.
Having similarities to the case of the also ‘vanished’ Australian Marion Barter in that no real evidence of her having ‘existed’ after the 19th March 2009 has ever come to light, I focused my commentary on Crime Suspect on the media portrayal of Claudia Lawrence and asked: “Would she have been made out to have been promiscuous and a drunk if she had been a man?”
As has also been pointed out by Joan Lawrence, the likely victim of murder’s mother, who has subsequently received an OBE for her efforts in bringing about the passing of the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 – which modified the law in order to allow the appointment of guardians for the affairs of missing people – the “intense” and “vicious stories” about what might have occurred helped nobody.
In Claudia Lawrence: A Mother’s Story, a four-part series first aired on the BBC in March this year, the problems of allowing untruths about what actually occurred to be spread is further explained, but what is now required is for a community to come together and to finally realise that it is time to put aside past allegiances. It is time to do justice for this missing-for-fifteen-years lady and her family.
To watch the full-length version of the Claudia Lawrence ‘Crime Suspect’ programme on TalkTV, click here.
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 and watch his current nightly show on YouTube at 8.30pm daily.
On Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “It’s been 15 years since chef Claudia Lawrence vanished into thin air in Heworth, York. What do you think happened to her?” He added the hashtags: #ClaudiaLawrence #Heworth #York #Yorkshire #chef #missingpeople #missing #vanish #vanished #murder #accident #death #strangecases #ClaudiasLaw #anniversary and offered four options. 78.7% of respondents favoured the answer: “Killed, someone she knew” whilst only 6.5% believe that she “disappeared” seeking a “new life.”Claudia Lawrence was born on 27th February 1974 in Malton in the North Riding of Yorshire. She vanished on either the evening of the 18th March 2009 or the morning of 19th March 2009 in Heworth, York. She has never been seen or heard from again since.A mind map produced by Matthew Steeples about the case. Whilst it is just a starting point, it illustrates the links between different members of the community of Heworth, York and the presumed victim of murder most likely. It is now time for members of that community to think of justice and reexamine their allegiances; time has passed and surely now, it is time for those that clearly know to finally tell the truth about what occurred on 18th March 2009.‘Crime Suspect’ aired its programme about the vanished-likely-murdered chef on 5th April 2024 with Peter Bleksley as host. The daughter of a solicitor and town mayor has been missing now for over 15 years and not one trace of her has been found to date.During the programme, there was much discussion of Miss Lawrence’s activities at a pub just six doors from her home, The Nag’s Head in Heworth, as well as at other hostelries she frequented.
As former BBC host Alex Belfield is forced to apologise to the BBC host Jeremy Vine, we call out this reprehensible ratbag for his raging rant against the victim of rape-murder at the home of Michael Barrymore, Stuart Lubbock
It’s not surprising that the BBC Radio 2 and Channel Five host Jeremy Vine got an “apology” – admittedly one forced out of an already jailed degenerate Twitter troll of epic proportions named Alex Belfield – yesterday. Frankly, Vine deserved far more and frankly, Belfield has now again been shown simply to be someone whom the stocks are too good for.
Cowardly stalker Bellfield – who used to tour the country spouting utter baloney with his would-do-anything-for-a-dime sidekick Katie Hopkins – was convicted in September 2022 and sentenced to 5 years and 26 weeks in prison for “subjecting his victims to an avalanche of hatred.”
At sentencing, this reprehensible piece of rubbish was told by Mr Justice Saini: “This was not traditional stalking, but your methods were just as effective a way of intimidating victims and in many ways much harder to deal with.”
Belfield – whose tactics included publishing Vine’s friends and associates telephone numbers online and falsely claiming the presenter had been “dishonest” over a memorial for another radio executive, John Myers – will now likely never return to the respectable spheres, but it was another video shared with The Steeple Times that has truly outraged this morning.
Sent to us by the people behind the Screwed Politics YouTube channel, this particular 6:13-minute clip features ‘Bellend’ poisonously pontificating about the 31st March 2001 rape and murder of father-of-two Stuart Lubbock at the Roydon, Essex bungalow then owned by the disgraced television host Michael Barrymore – a weird and warped individual who filmed himself throwing himself in a bin back in January.
The noxious nonsense spouted by Alex Belfield is worth transcribing for only one reason and that is to highlight it and him for what it truly is – toxic trash. We share it below with annotations in italics correcting the very many factual inaccuracies and lies told by the proven criminal Belfield.
Insulting the since deceased father of the victim, Belfield began:
“Lubbock’s father is obsessed [no, he was simply a grieving father who tried but did not get justice for the rape and murder of his son before he died]… Here’s the reality: His son went to a club which happened to be a gay club. His son drank with a load of gay guys [the group of 9 individuals that met at the Millennium Club that night and went back to Barrymore’s bungalow included several females also].”
“His son chose to go back by his own choice in a car to Michael Barrymore’s house – who was openly gay at that point and he chose to go in the swimming pool surrounded by gay guys [factually incorrect, it remains unknown how Mr Lubbock entered that pool] and he also chose to be at a party where cocaine was taken and alcohol was being drunk.”
“Stuart Lubbock put himself in that situation [incorrect, he went to a party, he did not likely wish himself raped and murdered]… We have to conclude that Stuart Lubbock was gay [not proven] and that he wanted to be there.”
“Lubbock was gay [not proven, he was a father of two known for having had heterosexual relationships] and he wanted to be there… We have to conclude that Stuart Lubbock was gay and wanted to be there.”
“The most depressing thing about this story is that Stuart Lubbock’s father, Terry Lubbock, refuses to accept that his son was gay [no, the most depressing thing about this story is that a father of two was raped and murdered at a party attended by 9 people and 8 of them lived and 8 of them failed to tell the truth]. This has to be the backbone of this story and the reason there is so much venom on Terry Lubbock’s side. I beg of you: Accept your son was gay. He chose to go to a gay club. He chose to go in the car. He chose to go back to the house of a gay man who was serving cocaine and alcohol [he did not, however, we suggest chose to be raped and murdered].”
Turning to self-serving Barrymore fleeing the scene before the police arrived, Belfield prattled:
“Michael Barrymore was not running from the truth. He was protecting himself from a PR disaster [the actions of someone completely free of any association with what had occurred at a property he then owned?]… The fire is being fueled by Stuart Lubbock’s dad.”
Going further this delusional dunce added:
“I beg of Stuart Lubbock’s dad one thing: Please grieve for your son. Please get help and counselling over the death of your son, but please accept one thing – that Stuart Lubbock was gay [how on earth would Belfield know either way?].”
“He was not forced into a car. He was not made to go to a gay club. He was not pulled into a pool [he did end up raped and murdered by at least two of those present and yet Belfield ignores that very important fact]. He was not forced to take drugs or drink alcohol [again unproven]. He chose to do all of those things [again incorrect, Stuart Lubbock most certainly would not have wished to have been raped and murdered].”
Most graphically and most disgustingly, Belfield then turned to the horrific and gruesome injuries sustained by the victim of rape and murder at the home of Michael Barrymore and sickly stated:
“We don’t know that he was forced to take something in his anus that was large. He could have liked taking something. He could chose [sic] to or he may have liked taking something in his backside that caused him such horrific injuries. This wasn’t a rape victim [totally unproven and totally outrageous, sickening and wrong, shame on Belfield].”
Turning back to Barrymore, whom the hopefully never to be seen again on the BBC or elsewhere Belfield clearly liked toadying upto, this clearly equally of unsound mind lunatic shared:
“Please leave this tortured man [Barrymore] alone… Leave Michael Barrymore alone [Barrymore received a sum said to be £60,000 for an interview about the rape-murder when he was interviewed by Piers Morgan]. This is tittle-tattle TV to get ratings and Twitter reaction and social media chit-chat at the expense of a man who is undoubtedly mentally ill and abused by this story and it is blown up every time by Stuart Lubbock’s father.”
“You have seen the tweets. This is not a wild accusation. This is what he does on his Twitter and it is uncalled for. It’s unedifying and it’s unnecessary. Leave Michael Barrymore alone… Stop this. This is a witch hunt. It’s disgusting.”
In conclusion, today, we respond for the sane majority; the only “witch hunt” that was “unedifying” and “disgusting” that was orchestrated on Twitter was orchestrated by a vomit inducing piece of vileness named Alex Belfield. Jeremy Vine and others have rightly been vindicated in calling out this cretinous creep and now we again remind Michael Barrymore and his cohorts of what they need to do: Man-up and tell the truth about what you all know what occurred on 31st March 2001.
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.
A message from our editorial team – Thank you for reading this article. We’re more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus and the cost-of-living crisis impacts our advertisers.
Justice for Stuart Lubbock – The people who need to man-up and tell the truth about what happened at Michael Barrymore’s home on 31st March 2001
Michael Parker (AKA Michael Barrymore) – Allegedly loudly said: “I need a f**k” in a taxi as he left the Millennium Nightclub to return to his home, the scene of the death of Stuart Lubbock. Barrymore later lied to a coroner’s court about facilitating drug taking at his house on the night in question also.
Barrymore claimed to have been first to have discovered the body of Stuart Lubbock at 5.45am, called his manager Mike Brown before the ambulance arrived and then left the premises. He admits that was “wrong” and also bizarrely told Piers Morgan that in spite of “knowing others were hiding secrets about what happened to Mr. Lubbock” that “I am not going to say their names. I just hope they are brave enough to come forward one day.”
Mike Brown – Agent of Michael Barrymore. Called to the property before emergency services arrived.
Kelly Campbell – Had met Michael Barrymore for the first time on the night of the incident. Claimed not to have been aware of what happened.
James Futters (sometimes spelt ‘Futers’) – A paper boy turned chef. Described as “a local from the village” and a “friend and neighbour of Barrymore.” Claimed to have been the first to discover the body with Simon Shaw and stated: “[It was not] Michael Barrymore and not Jonathan Kenney [who found him].” Later, of him the Evening Standard reported: “Barrymore offered James Futters a white powder on his finger saying: ‘Do you want to try this?’ Mr Futters told the inquest that he leaned forward and licked the powder.”
Claire Jones – Then aged 17. Had met Michael Barrymore for the first time on the night of the incident. Claimed not to have been aware of what happened but told the police that she “saw Barrymore rummaging through drawers and changing his clothes before police arrived. When he left the house, he had a ‘bundle of material’ under his arm,” according to the Evening Standard. “She added: ‘Jonathan (Kenney) was rushing through the bungalow before the ambulance and police arrived. I got the impression he was hiding something.’”
Jonathan Kenney – Estate agent, drag queen and Michael Barrymore’s then lover; later arrested on suspicion of murder but never charged; known for having a “record of violence.” Claimed to have been the first to have discovered the body and is now in his 50s. He has variously lived, supposedly, in Blackpool and Cheshire and has worked as a coach driver also.
Justin Merritt – A dustman from Essex. Later arrested on suspicion of murder but never charged. Later paid £30,000 by the News of the World for an interview in which he stated Barrymore had “rubbed cocaine on Stuart Lubbock’s lips shortly before he died.”
Kylie Merritt – Sister of Justin Merritt. She also alleged Barrymore “rubbed cocaine on Stuart Lubbock’s lips shortly before he died” (curiously in the wake of her brother selling his account of the night).
Simon Shaw – Described as “a local from the village.” Michael Barrymore supposedly “ran off” to Mr. Shaw’s house to “buy himself thinking time [for two hours] before he was questioned by the police [at 7.49am].”
In addition, others, who’ve never been identified could also have possibly been present. If they were, they should come forward or be named by those listed above.
The disgraced entertainer Michael Barrymore pictured ‘worshiping’ Sir Jimmy Savile in the ‘Celebrity Big Brother’ house in January 2006. Of the late paedophile, at the time, the self-centred ex ‘Strike It Lucky’ host disgustingly declared: “When he came in I was blown away because it’s him and he never lets you down. I didn’t think seeing Jim and hearing Jim talking and being so personal and kind to me. I started to well up in there and thought here we go.”The scene of the rape and murder of Stuart Lubbock on 31st March 2001: Michael Barrymore’s then home, 4 Beaumont Park Drive, Roydon, Harlow, Essex, CM19 5HB. The property was most recently sold for £1.33 million in 2017 whilst Barrymore had paid £392,500 for it in 1998 and was forced to sell it for £802,000 in 2005 to cover costs related to his bankruptcy.The eight people who went to party on 31st March 2001 who didn’t die. Why won’t any of them tell the truth and why has one of them changed his name?Jonathan Kenney – a now 53-year-old – was the ‘entertainer’s’ lover at the time of the killing. He is said to now be a coach driver, resides supposedly in Cheshire and has most curiously changed his name. One is left wondering why.Michael Barrymore disgustingly pretending to be Hitler (left) and victim of rape and murder at his home, Stuart Lubbock (right).Michael Barrymore pictured rolling around on the floor off-his-skull with the convicted racist bigot Marie-Claire, Baroness von Alvensleben.
In mocking the five people who’ve tragically died in the Titanic submersible tragedy, Jeremy Corbyn supporting Commie Ash Sarkar simply shows herself to be a braindead berk suggests Matthew Steeples
I’m honoured to be blocked on Twitter by the left-wing windbag Owen Jones and I’d very much like to be blocked on Twitter by the right-wing windbag Darren Grimes. As “crafty” as he was in his supposed under the desk activity whilst at whatever ‘comp’ he attended (and continually bangs on about as part of his effort to “get with the masses”), the one Twittering troll I’d truly, genuinely, actually like to be blocked by is a Jeremy Corbyn apologist named Ash Sarkar.
Miss Sarkar – who only ever previously came to my attention because of her appearances on the sadly once great but now ever increasingly dull BBC Two political show Politics Live – yesterday decided to go full-on rent-a-gob and opted not to show sympathy to the five souls who subsequently were revealed to have tragically died in a submarine mission to visit the Titanic.
Instead of joining the decent majority of folk who simply shared sympathies with the families of the five deceased, columnist for Novara Media and The Guardian Sarkar tweeted her 415,117 followers to disgustingly announce:
“The Titanic submarine is a modern morality tale of what happens when you have too much money, and the grotesque inequality of sympathy, attention and aid for those without it. Migrants are ‘meant’ to die at sea; billionaires aren’t.”
Going further and piling yet more pugnacious poison on the bonfire that she’d quite unnecessarily started, this rabid ranter – whom also seems to like to repeatedly tell the world that it is “f*cked” – then added:
“There’s a few layers between ‘well-off’ (does the big shop at Ocado) and ‘billionaire’ (flies off to space with Jeff Bezos). The former I envy, the latter I think should be taxed out of existence.”
“We’re not talking about people forced into unseaworthy vessels out of desperation, we’re talking about obscenely wealthy individuals without an ounce of humility.”
Called out and slammed by every sensible sort left on the planet, this anti-anxiety drug taking deranged dunce – who has previously been known to go rabid when claiming to be on “Team Hate” when someone else claimed to “hate” the former Prime Minister Theresa May’s husband, Sir Philip May – must now be sent to social media Siberia. It is time, in fact, for moronic madams like Ash Sarkar simply to be silenced.
Responding to a much-deserved barrage of criticism on Twitter on Friday, the cretinous creep Sarkar didn’t shut-up. Instead, this insipid no-mark sniped: “This is a website where people come to share opinions. Sometimes, people don’t like those opinions. That’s all there is to it!” The unrequired exclamation mark, frankly, speaks volumes.
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.
A message from our editorial team – Thank you for reading this article. We’re more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus and the cost-of-living crisis impacts our advertisers.
Ash Sarkar was once described by fellow journalist Dan Wootton as “grasping” and today Matthew Steeples asked of her on Twitter: “Was Ash Sarkar @AyoCaesar right to suggest those 5 souls who so sadly died on Titanic submersible were an example of a ‘modern morality tale of what happens when you have too much money’?” By 12 noon on Friday 23rd June 2023, the majority of respondents favoured the answer: “No; she is mental and evil.”“Which one is dumber?” is a question that should be asked of the Novara Media nitwit and the petulant pest David Starkey? They should both stick “Luxury Communism” up their rotten arses.
As humanitarian hero Terry Waite is knighted, a prisoner he has campaigned in support of, Mark Alexander, finally gets good news with a landmark judgment at the High Court
This morning, in King Charles III’s clearly well thought out Birthday Honours list, a genuinely wonderful gentleman, Terry Waite received what he’s described as one of his life’s “peak” achievements when this former envoy for the Church of England was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George (KCMG) for his services to charity.
The now elevated Sir Terry modestly commented that he was “really amazed that I’ve got it; I’m getting on, but I’m still working at 84.” He added: “I’m still very active” and yesterday came good news also for a campaign the former hostage has long been involved with, that of the case of the clearly dubious conviction of Mark Alexander.
Yesterday in London, the High Court decided a legal challenge against the government over a jail interview by telephone by journalist Robin Eveleigh with Alexander was “misdirected and irrational.” Mr Justice Andrew Baker said a decision by the governor of HMP Coldingley in Surrey, where Alexander is currently held, should be “quashed” and added that “the claimant’s request [will need to be considered] afresh.”
Responding, through the ‘Justice for Mark Alexander’ campaign website, Mark Alexander announced:
“Today’s ruling is an important milestone in the fight for an open, transparent and accountable justice system in which prisoners’ voices are heard; wrongful convictions can be properly scrutinised; and our free press is able to work without resistance or obfuscation from government. More needs to be done to address other systemic failings at the heart of our penal and justice system, but today at least marks a step in the right direction and will hopefully enable more recognition to be given to miscarriages of justice here in the UK.”
Going further, Eveleigh explained:
“The role of the media in highlighting and exposing miscarriages of justice cannot be overstated. The BBC’s pioneering investigative documentary Rough Justice led to 18 convictions being overturned.”
“Mr Alexander’s story is never going to reach the audience it needs and deserves via print media, nor would a print media commission or commissions go anywhere near supporting the volume of work required to investigate his case thoroughly. It is telling that in response to the quashing of Adnan Syed’s conviction – following the global attention his case received through the American podcast Serial – veteran BBC journalist Justin Webb told Radio 4’s Today programme that podcasts were now ‘the place to go’ for innocent people wrongly convicted.”
Mark Alexander’s grandmother added:
“As a family we need this documentary to happen. We all feel it can bring about fair justice, to prove Mark’s innocence and clear his name. I will always support Mark, because I know in my heart that he is innocent.”
Production of the podcast series about Mark Alexander’s case by Robin Eveleigh now ought to be given the go-ahead and this, a conviction based very much on a very much botched investigation, must now be reexamined. Such should be done urgently, but given how slowly the wheels of justice move in once Great Britain, sadly, don’t hold your breath.
Editor’s note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Is it time for the case of Mark Alexander @PatientCaptive to be reinvestigated?” He linked to this article and added: “Context of murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence only according to Sir Terry Waite in today’s ‘The Steeple Times.’” By 12 noon on Saturday 17th June 2023, the very clear majority of respondents favoured the answer: “Yes; Mark Alexander is innocent.”Found guilty without any forensic evidence and with the help of ‘Midsomer Murders-esque’ “suspicious neighbours primarily, supporters of Mark Alexander rightly highlight that the prosecution withheld critical information from trial that included that four potential suspects – who police never bothered to speak to – were never even mentioned to the jury. Going further and summing up what led to the conviction of Alexander, Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence (PPMI), observed: “Another example of typical factors in a wrongful conviction: no forensic evidence, impossible time frame for the crime to be committed, witness put off by the police, important witnesses not interviewed, lurid allegations in the press published before they could be countered, all racked up by such sad personal circumstances.”
Issues with the 2010 murder conviction and jailing for life with a minimum of 16 years of Mark Alexander:
Not one iota of forensic evidence links the convicted now 35-year-old to the murder and much of the police case against him was based on the word of “suspicious neighbours” with attitudes akin to characters from the TV drama series Midsomer Murders.
On the homepage of the campaign supporting him, it is stated: “Mark has always maintained his innocence… Mark was found guilty on the basis of doubt created about his version of events rather than any evidence of his involvement in a murder. No such evidence exists. There is no known cause, or date, of death – and there were no traces of DNA, blood, or even fingerprints linking Mark to the crime.”
The convicted man’s father, Samuel, had a string of at least eleven aliases and was a known confidence trickster.
The deceased man was cautioned for shoplifting in 1995 and had been involved in mortgage frauds involving a number of properties. He was described by his son tellingly when he remarked: “Dad always seemed to be running or hiding from something.”
Samuel Alexander lied also to his son about what had happened to his mother and cruelly told him she had died of cancer. The pair were only reunited after Mark Alexander’s arrest and it then became known that Samuel Alexander had also cheated her as part of a property scam also.
Mark Alexander has produced evidence showing that there were four potential suspects working at his father’s home around the time of his death. Police never spoke to these suspects and the jury were never made aware of them.
The convicted man has never admitted his guilt of this shocking crime in spite of the fact that in doing so he could have seen his sentence reduced.
Using human rights laws, Mark Alexander was, in March 2020, able to finally obtain files documenting his father’s multiple identities from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. He became supposedly the first person in Britain to achieve such access and now also, according to the Daily Mail’s Alice Cachia and Robin Eveleigh: “[The Justice for Mark Alexander’ campaign] are also developing new mobile phone cell site evidence which they hope will provide proof of Alexander’s movements around the time of his father’s death.” They hint that this will show he could not possibly have been present at the time of the murder and burial.
Mark Alexander told The Mirror’s crime editor Tom Pettifor in May 2020: “I’ve always always maintained my innocence, you just assume the system will work, but we didn’t have enough time or evidence to prove it, particularly against the story the prosecution were spinning… Nothing will ever justify what they did to [my father], but I just need some answers.”
Over the course of my life I have been in contact with many prisoners who claim they have been unjustly convicted.
I fully appreciate that not all who approach me are truthful, but it is said that between six and seven percent of those convicted are innocent and ought not to be in jail.
I fully understand what a difficult task it is for an innocent prisoner to appeal. It is a long and costly process. It is also difficult for those who have to determine the fate of a man or woman claiming wrongful conviction.
I have known Mark Alexander for almost ten years. I have studied his case and spoken personally with him many times. The evidence against him was circumstantial, as was pointed out by the judge in his case.
I find it difficult to believe that a complete forensic examination was conducted before the jury found him guilty by majority verdict. In recent years, new evidence has emerged which throws even further doubt on the safety of his conviction.
Alas, the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly and Mark, still a young man, remains incarcerated – denied access to an open prison because, in the eyes of the authorities, he refuses to accept his guilt.
In the past 12 years, he has achieved academic distinction, but his continued imprisonment in a secure establishment means he may not be able to study for a doctorate.
Mark’s case certainly raises reasonable doubt in my mind and, ought to be reviewed without further delay.
Mark Alexander and his late father Samuel Alexander.The scene of the burial (but not necessarily the killing) of Samuel Alexander – 2 Prospect Close, Drayton Parslow, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, MK17 0JB.An aerial shot of the property.Documentary evidence of Samuel Alexander using aliases that show him to have been a man capable of perpetrating fraud and deception.On Friday 28th September 2018, Mark Alexander played at a charity concert for The Howard League of Penal Reform at HM Prison Coldingley in Bisley, Surrey. Terry Waite CBE read from ‘Out of the Silence,’ his book about his 1,763 days in captivity from 1987 to 1991 in Lebanon.
“Which one is actually worse?” asks Matthew Steeples. ‘TikTok tearway twerp’Bacari-Bronze O’Garro (AKA ‘Mizzy’) or ‘bigoted braggart bully’ Talk TV host Andre Walker?
‘Mizzy’ – whose actual name is Bacari-Bronze O’Garro – is someone who has come to public attention only in recent weeks. This self-declared “literal genius” and “face of the youth media personality” is simply best known for using social media platforms including Twitter to behave appallingly. On the channels he uses, this disgraceful dumbo has been shockingly filmed:
Stealing a dog from an elderly woman in a park.
Invading the home of a family and pretending he was trying to find a study group when called out; of this he remarked: “I wouldn’t really call it terrorising, I’ll just call it more having fun.”
Leapfrogging over an orthodox Jewish man and stealing his hat.
Destroying books in a library by tearing their pages apart.
Asking women minding their own business in the street: “Do you want to die?”
Saying: “Hate brings money. Hate brings likes, brings views – it doesn’t matter” after he had been fined by the courts, tagged and given a community protection order.
Meanwhile, ‘Wack Job Walker’ – a self-declared “fat, northern… bit of a bruiser” who branded The Steeple Times “fake news” before blocking our site in May 2017 and a clearly stir-fried of mind moron who used to work for Donald Trump’s decidedly deviant son-in-law Jared Kushner – is a chubby chump I first met in the mid-1990s. I remember him back then as loud and ludicrous, but in the years since, this ex-Breitbart Brexiteer bore became best known for simply hurling his toys out of his oversized pram whenever anyone dared question the gibberish he spouts.
At that time, Walker showed himself as beyond shockingly stupid when shared an image of himself wielding a sword on a terrace at the Palace of Wesminster. Accompanying it, he tweeted: “A bounty on my head. Any #ISIS terrorist that kills me gets £50k. I’ll give my address. No police. But I’ve got a sword. Good luck.” Quite rightly universally condemned and called out as an irresponsible moron, this noxious nitwit subsequently moved on from his New York Observer column for Kushner to now hosting a show on the Rupert Murdoch owned Talk TV.
Now, after joining fellow hypocrites including the BBC’s Kirsty Wark on Newsnight and Piers Morgan – also on Talk TV – in inviting O’Garro onto his show, former ‘Tory Boy’ Walker has proven that he is still someone who’ll put gaining attention over public decency. What on earth were these three thinking in giving a platform to an 18-year-old ignoramus imbecile? I say: You’ve all been played; shame on the lot of you.
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
Today on Twitter, Matthew Steeples enquired: “Which is actually worse? Known-attention-seeker from Talk TV Andre Walker or known-attention-seeker who uses TikTok ‘Mizzy’?” By 1:30pm on Monday 5th June 2023, the majority of respondents favoured the view of “both of them ghastly/vile.”Delusional dunce Andre Walker irresponsibly posing in June 2017 with a sword on a terrace at the Palace of Westminster in the hope of getting himself into a fight with ISIS (left) and brazen brat Bacari-Bronze O’Garro seeking attention (right); these two total twits actually have a lot in common. That the Talk TV host even invited the TikTok terror onto his show is bad enough, but that he then didn’t react rationally and accused him of giving a “threatening look to a fellow guest” is quite beyond laughable. That the bow tie clad wazzock Walker then “furiously threw his papers in the air” is even more stupid and that he then yelled: “Get security from downstairs and get rid of him. For Christ’s sake. I don’t want him here. I think that guy’s a complete and total fool” is another. The only thing achieved by the reprehensible Talk TV host was that he was labelled “unhinged” and “deranged” by Twitter users.The BBC and Kirsty Wark have also been deservedly “slammed” for hosting the 18-year old, Hackney born teenage “TikTok tearaway terror” on what the ‘Evening Standard’ described as a “heavyweight political discussion show” whilst “fitted with a prison tag after his release on bail over alleged breaches of criminal behaviour.” The paper’s Barney Davis added: “In a bizarre performance he posed, snatched host Kirsty Wark’s glass of water, thanked the BBC for making him an ‘established prankster’ and revealed the Tate brothers had been in touch to help guide his social media career.On Thursday night’s show on the BBC, Kirsty Wark’s co-panelist, the author Laura Bates, asked who was profiting from the clicks of young people as they debated self-described misogynist Andrew Tate’s toxic influence on young boys. Bates responded: “Algorithms are designed to drive people to increasingly extreme content because it gets them clicks. So you have to look at who is profiting here. Andrew Tate is profiting certainly…” before Mizzy “cut her” and announced: “Mizzy is profiting… You guys give [Tate] a platform… You give me the platform everything I do is bad apparently what you are saying but I’m on BBC [‘Newsnight’] right now blud, come on now, you man playing the game… I’m just an 18-year-old boy, I have a child I’m from the hood I’m just living my life at the end of the day.” Going further in his ‘Evening Standard’ article, Barney Davis commented: “Mizzy revealed that Tristan Tate, currently under arrest in Romania on suspicion of organised crime and human trafficking with his brother Andrew, had slid into his DMs to tell him he has ‘potential’ to become a social media sensation but should change his ways.”Also failing and falling for the TikTok twerp’s tricks… Piers Morgan branded O’Garro a “complete moron,” but one could quite reasonably argue he was the moron to have even have invited this cretinous convicted criminal onto his show in the first place. Prior to even appearing on the show, O’Garro told his followers: “Hello world. You guys have all fallen to my plan. Right now I’m on the way to Piers Morgan. He’s gonna try and catch me out but I’ve got plans for him. I’ve got something for him, yeah.” One would have thought that Morgan’s many runners and researchers might have checked this out prior to putting the brazen brat on air; clearly they proved otherwise and showed themselves as useful as chocolate teapots.
Responding to the Talk TV outburst of the bully Andre Walker on Twitter, the columnist and podcaster Mic Wright observed: “Andre Walker is himself a troll. He has been given a presenting role on that station because he is willing to be a bully to anyone his bosses need abused.” In a separate tweet, he added: “The ‘threatening behaviour’ that Walker was ‘condemning’ was the act of… looking at another guest while she was talking. Walker was racist and threatened violence live on the radio and will be rewarded for it.”
After ‘Has-Been’ Prince Harry nonsensically claimed he was pursued for TWO HOURS by paparazzi, all he has proven is that he’s nothing but a whining whingebag
After having put in an appearance at the astoundingly overpriced £795,000 ($1 million, €915,000 or درهم3.7 million) for two tables Ms. Foundation for Women awards dinner at the Ziegfeld Ballroom at 141 West 54th Street – where the mendacious menace formerly known as Meghan Markle laughably received a ‘Woman of Vision award in spite of clearly being totally lacking in ‘vision’ of anything other than power and privilege – the trio claim to have been involved in a two hour “near catastrophic” car chase around Manhattan.
An unnamed spokesperson for ‘Walmart Wallis’ and her dopey drip ‘Has-Been’ hubby subsequently whined:
“[On Tuesday[ night, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and [Doria] Ragland were involved in a near catastrophic car chase at the hands of a ring of highly aggressive paparazzi.”
“This relentless pursuit, lasting over two hours, resulted in multiple near collisions involving other drivers on the road, pedestrians and two NYPD officers.”
“While being a public figure comes with a level of interest from the public, it should never come at the cost of anyone’s safety.”
“Dissemination of these images, given the ways in which they were obtained, encourages a highly intrusive practice that is dangerous to all in involved.”
However, according to The Sun: “Cabbie Sukhcharn Singh, who picked up the Sussexes and Meghan’s mum Doria Ragland, said they ‘obviously didn’t grow up in New York.’ He added: ‘I think that’s all, you know, exaggerated. I don’t think I’d call it a chase.’”
Going further the paper added: “A high-ranking NYPD insider said the chase ‘definitely wasn’t two hours,’ adding its escort had around 20 minutes of interaction with Meghan and Harry’s convoy.”
Speaking to The Guardian, Julian Phillips, NYPD deputy commissioner for public information, observed:
“The NYPD assisted the private security team protecting the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. There were numerous photographers that made their transport challenging. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex arrived at their destination and there were no reported collisions, summonses, injuries, or arrests in regard.”
Tellingly: “Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the reports,” but, naturally, the meddling mouthpiece Omid Scobie had to get his plastic-not-fantastic face onto the screens to spout salaciously about the non-incident. Speaking to the BBC’s Newsnight – a show that should know better than to bring on this tittle-tattling twerp – the one-time ‘bestie’ of the not-so-glamorous glamour model Jodie Marsh whinged:
“It is impossible not to think of Princess Diana when we hear about car accidents and this kind of aggressive paparazzi chase and so, I was really surprised to hear from sources that not one member of the royal family – including King Charles and Prince William, who are obviously heavily affected by Princess Diana’s death – had not reached out to Prince Harry hours after this news had broken.”
“You know, it was sort of on every single headline around the world. Sadly, that shows the kind of disrepair that that relationship is. It is hard not to forget that Harry was here just a couple of weeks ago for King Charles’s coronation.”
“You would have thought that that may go towards building some kind of path towards reconciliation in some way, but it seems like that’s not felt on the other side and that would no doubt of been a sort of disappointing addition to what had already been a traumatic 12 hours for the couple.”
It is now time for just one further development; it is time for ‘MeGain’ and ‘Has-Been’ to take a taxi to Siberia.
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Do you believe claims of dopey drip Prince Harry & his mendacious menace wife, the wicked wench formerly known as Meghan Markle, that they spent TWO HOURS being chased around NYC by paparazzi?” By 11:30am on Friday 19th May 2023, the majority of respondents favoured the answer: “No; exaggerated nonsense.”
All of the Meghan Markle fans in my mentions screaming “NO-ONE SAID IT WAS A HIGH SPEED CHASE”. Errrr, straight from their mouthpiece Omid Scobie telling lies as per usual stating it reached 80mph
— FAN of the Prince & Princess of Wales (@TribesBritannia) May 18, 2023
On ‘Newsnight’ PR peddling pillock Omid Scobie whined: “It is impossible not to think of Princess Diana when we hear about car accidents and this kind of aggressive paparazzi chase and so, I was really surprised to hear from sources that not one member of the royal family – including King Charles and Prince William, who are obviously heavily affected by Princess Diana’s death – had not reached out to Prince Harry hours after this news had broken. You know, it was sort of on every single headline around the world. Sadly, that shows the kind of disrepair that that relationship is. It is hard not to forget that Harry was here just a couple of weeks ago for King Charles’s coronation. You would have thought that that may go towards building some kind of path towards reconciliation in some way, but it seems like that’s not felt on the other side and that would no doubt of been a sort of disappointing addition to what had already been a traumatic 12 hours for the couple.Omid Scobie being sent on a media circuit gadabout to bang on about the non-event is further proof that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have well and truly lost the plot. This couple would do well to belt up, wrap up and shut up, but sadly they simply won’t.On Friday morning, Matthew Steeples observed on Twitter: “Prince Harry is a brain dead berk. Period.” Hundreds of people liked and shared the tweet and thus provided indication of how the public view the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as now nothing but a laughing stock and in the league of the late Duke and Duchess of Windsor; here is a couple who frankly would do better just to give up. Equally, the former Meghan Markle’s decision to accept an award has rightly been called out. Royals should GIVE OUT awards, they SHOULD NOT accept them. Here is another example of the duo’s attitude of “rights over responsibilities” shining through. Shame on the pair of rotten toerags.An annotated map, courtesy of a ‘Daily Mail’ report, shows the route the couple took. It proves that their claim of the incident lasting two hours is total twaddle. This ‘storm-in-a-teacup’ is nothing but just that. In attempting to play the Diana, Princess of Wales accident card, all the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have achieved is to make utter fools of themselves. They should be reminded: “When you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging.”
What’s the truth about the many ‘curious stories’ that abound about the Duchess of Sussex?
Of her claiming having got married the day before she actually did, Mr Markle stated: “Lying about the archbishop? How can you say: ‘We’ve been married three days before we got married’? Her lies are so obvious, I don’t know why she says them.”
Her very own half-sister, Samantha Markle, 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 untrue given a photo of the pair together 14 years ago proves quite to the contrary.
Her very own half-brother, Thomas Jr., said of her: “I told Prince Harry, I think she’s going to ruin your life. She’s very shallow… She’s a phony, a bully, a jaded, shallow, conceited woman.”
The wife of Prince Harry has been called out on multiple occasions for spinning stories against other members of the royal family, most especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Queen Camilla.
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.
What’s the truth about Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland? Is this clearly equally manipulative woman an honest and decent citizen or is she a jailbird who has spent time in the clink?
Did the ‘Montecito Meddler’ meet Prince Andrew or Prince Harry first? Rumours abound that she could have spent time and holidayed with the former as long ago as 2001 and that her claim to have no prior knowledge of the royal family until 2016 is just utter baloney.
As Prince Andrew and Sarah, Duchess of York fall into yet another Daphne Barak trap, Matthew Steeples suggests this dimwitted pair of dunces SHOULD now be turfed out of Royal Lodge
Neither non-sweater Prince Andrew nor his “needy and greedy,” live-in ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York are known as Britain’s brightest brainboxes. Now, though, with news that they’re “digging their heels” in and refusing to leave Royal Lodge, Windsor comes further proof that this pugnacious pair of pillocks simply cannot read the room and that they clearly most definitely realise that the writing is one the world.
Not the brightest bulbs in the box and in fact also clearly the dimmest dunces in the royal family, the ‘Grand Old Duke of Broke’ and his repeatedly nigh on bankrupt sidekick, if Daphne Barak – a PR peddler very tellingly associated with not only ‘Feckless Fergie,’ but also Hillary Clinton, Ghislaine Maxwell and her own very own Jeffrey Epstein chum uncle, former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak – is to be believed, are now supposedly seeking a “showdown” with King Charles and the new Prince of Wales over whether or not they should be able to remain at the royal residence they’ve occupied for some thirty years.
In an article, penned by Barak for this morning’s The Mail on Sunday and clearly penned with assistance from the Yorks themselves, yet more unnamed sources claimed:
“Friends of the Yorks say Andrew, who was forced to step back as a front-line Royal because of his association with paedophile millionaire Jeffrey Epstein, is ‘refusing to budge’ from Royal Lodge. They say he’s in low spirits and has become reclusive. One friend said: ‘He is so fragile. He’s refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?’”
“‘He’s concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He’s worried that the Royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we’re dealing with human beings, not real estate.’”
“‘If Charles wants Andrew to play ball and help the family through these difficult times, aren’t there better ways of going about it?’”
“‘Why not do the decent thing, sit down and talk? If they need the house for William, perhaps Andrew should be told. Perhaps William should invite his uncle for tea and explain.’”
“‘Or why doesn’t Charles invite his brother for a meeting and ask him if he’d leave Royal Lodge to help his nephew and the future of the monarchy? And agree a schedule acceptable to both sides.’”
“‘Is a little decency so difficult? There are real people at the heart of all this. He’s just lost his mother. Who, straight after that, would want to be evicted by his brother?’”
At the end of this very clearly ‘Randy Andy’ and ‘Feckless Fergie’ placed puff piece, Donald Trump supporting Daphne Barak then proceeds to promote her latest book, Struggling for One America, and “pop culture scoops.” The article’s mere existence proves that the without-any-sense-of-sense Duke of York and Sarah, Duchess of York have yet still to understand the concept of “with friends like these who needs enemies.”
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 – Guffawing goon Prince Andrew and his grimacing grabber sidekick Sarah, Duchess of York; their current crib Royal Lodge, Windsor. How long will these dimwits be able to remain there?
Should 'Grand Old Duke of Broke' Prince Andrew and his 'needy and greedy' live-in ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York be turfed out of Royal Lodge, Windsor and should their utilities be turned off to aid the process? #DukeOfYork#PrinceAndrew#Fergie#SarahFerguson#royal#disgrace
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Should ‘Grand Old Duke of Broke’ Prince Andrew and his ‘needy and greedy’ live-in ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York be turfed out of Royal Lodge, Windsor and should their utilities be turned off to aid the process?” By 11:30am on Sunday 14th May 2023, the majority of respondents favoured the answer: “Yes; send in the bailiffs.”Grade II listed Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, Windsor, SL4 2JD has been home to Prince Andrew since he took a 75-year lease on it from the Crown Estate in August 2003. He paid around £1 million for it and had to agree to spend £7.5 million at September 2002 prices excluding VAT on the building’s renovation. In January 2022, the building was valued as being worth a sum of £30 million on the open market.The entrance gates to the house are suitably grand for the known to be beyond pompous second son of the late Queen Elizabeth II and the late Duke of Edinburgh. For the Coronation, ‘Fergie’ promised to offer coronation chicken sandwiches at the end of the drive to the public. No photographs of her doing such have emerged; proof yet again that this self-publicist is nothing but a self-serving and self-centred piece of rubbish.A reception room in the royal residence. Regular guests here are said to include the coffin dodging skinflint Bernie Ecclestone – a diminutive dwarf awaiting a trial for a fraud estimated at £400 million later this year. Supposedly, not many others choose to visit the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s former ‘bestie’ since his juggernauth wreck of an interview with Emily Maitlis for ‘Newsnight’ anymore. Should the public feel sorry for the non-sweating, Pizza Express loving sort? We say: “Certainly not.”Frogmore Cottage received a £2.4 million ‘MeGain makeover.’ At the time, a predictably unnamed “royal source” told the ‘Daily Mail’ of the two orangeries added: “Natural light is important for the Sussexes as Meghan misses the LA sunshine.” A new kitchen at the property was said to have cost in excess of £100,000 whilst the predictably ‘woke’ wench formerly known as Meghan Markle also demanded all paints used must be from the vegan and chemical free £74 a tin Auro range. Somehow, however, one could not imagine pompous Prince Andrew and his live-in grifter ex-wife feeling suitable for their occupation considering how pretentious the pair of them are.The rotten associations and poor decisions of the Duke of York and Sarah, Duchess of York are the reason that this reprehensible royal and his sidekick should be thrown out of a house that is also clearly far too large to be occupied by just two grifters and those that wait on their every want and need. It is time that the former home of the late Queen Mother be given to a family that might actually enjoy it and to a family that might actually use it for its true purpose – entertaining others for the benefit of the nation.It should NOT be forgotten that Ghislaine Maxwell was a regular visitor to the house and was not only just a ‘friend’ of ‘Fergie,’ but also allegedly a lover of not only Jeffrey Epstein but also the Duke of York supposedly also. The web of deceit and deviousness that has for too long invaded this 10-bedroomed, 30-room house must finally be banished to the past.Mocked universally, this pair of bellends should finally be sent to social Siberia. King Charles III and his son clearly are on the right track and do not need this pair of toerags, and also the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in addition, causing yet further havoc for the rest of their family. Get them gone.Elsewhere yesterday, it was revealed Sarah, Duchess of York was in Venice, Italy “with at least three suitcases in tow” attending the wedding of the Canadian billionaire owner of Aston Martin Lawrence Stroll’s daughter Chloe to an Olmpian named Scotty James. In spite of her likely being made ‘homeless’ soon, it seems as if “life ain’t hard” for a woman who has still failed to answer the question: “Did you ever repay the loans and other benefits from the at-the-time-you-took-them criminal sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein?”
Today we salute Ephraim Hardcastle for hitting the nail bang on the head in referencing Prince Harry’s “troubling factual inconsistencies” in just two sentences
The two sentences – featured in a column by “The Mail’s acerbic diarist, with all the most wicked gossip that the stars don’t want you to know…” – read:
“The judge in Harry’s privacy case says there are ‘troubling factual inconsistencies’ in his evidence for claims dating back decades.”
“Could this be explained by revelations in Spare that in the past he’s been on the wacky baccy and his memory might be a bit, er, foggy?”
Editor’s Note – Unlike as is the case in many publications, this article was NOT sponsored or supported by a third-party. Follow Matthew Steeples on Twitter at @M_Steeples.
Today on Twitter, Matthew Steeples asked: “Are the ‘troubling factual inconsistencies’ enough to derail Prince Harry’s court case against News Group Newspapers?” By 12.30pm on Saturday 29th April 2023, over 75% of respondents answered: “Yes; definitely, finished.”The Duke of Sussex has joined up with the titleless and frankly as dull as dishwater husband of Sir Elton John, Mr David Furnish, to take on News Group Newspapers. He was deservedly mocked in this morning’s ‘Daily Mail’ but sadly they failed to mention fellow beyond boring litigants including Hugh Grant and Sadie Frost.Sir Elton John and his titleless husband – whom, if you’d believe his April 2016 whining to the ‘Daily Mail’s’ Sebastian Shakespeare, would like to be called ‘Lady John’ – like to spend as much time as possible with Prince Charles’ second son and his avaricious wife. The non-working royals like to sponge off the very, very, very rich popstar and his hubby and, let’s be honest, they wouldn’t be clinging to their coattails if they the 75-year-old old geezer and his 16-year-younger sidekick were living in a council house in Peckham.
