Friday, 2 January 2015
Prince Andrew Sex Claim? Forget It
The ardently Royalist Telegraph has gone some way off-piste today as it has reported, in rather more detail than its readers might expect, on a fringe allegation in a US court case. “Prince Andrew 'categorically denies' claims he sexually abused teenager …Buckingham Palace moves quickly to deny claims made in US court document that teenager used as ‘sex slave’ was abused by Duke of York” tells the headline.
The report goes on “Prince Andrew has ‘categorically’ denied allegations … that he sexually abused a 17-year-old girl … The accusations against the Duke of York - which also include claims that he took part in an orgy with other underage girls - are contained in a motion filed in a Florida court by a woman who claims that Jeffrey Epstein, an American investment banker, loaned her to rich and powerful friends”.
However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, the Guardian puts all of this into context: “The prince is not a named party to the legal claim, which is directed against federal prosecutors. He has not had any opportunity to respond to the allegations in the legal claim”. That report also quotes Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who has also been named in the action.
His denial was unequivocal: “There is no more strenuous denial than the one I am giving. I never met her. I don’t know her. I have never had sex with an underage person … This person has made this up out of cloth, maliciously and knowingly in order to extort money from Mr Epstein … It is a totally fabricated charge in every possible way … It just never happened”. And even the Mail is caveating its report.
“Court papers in motion claim woman had sex with Andrew three times …They claim meetings took place in London, New York and US Virgin Islands … One meeting was 'an orgy with numerous under-aged girls' it is claimed … It is said the woman was approached by the daughter of Robert Maxwell” [my emphases]. And what relevance does Cap’n Bob’s daughter have? Who knows, but it’s another famous name, innit?!?
The Duke Of York’s spokesman has pointed out that “This relates to long-standing and ongoing civil proceedings in the United States, to which The Duke of York is not a party … As such we would not comment on the detail. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue”. So why is the story being reported, and is there any substance in it?
Why? It’s the Royals, and Royals mean sales. Also, Royalty is no longer something for papers to keep schtum over - since Diana’s day, the Royals have become as public a property as any other slebs. As to substance - forget it. This is, as Alan Dershowitz made plain, someone wanting to pursue a claim against Jeffrey Epstein. All that Andrew appears to have done wrong is to choose his friends less than wisely.
That’s a bit like all those people who talk to the press, having trusted them first. Hint.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Don't speak too soon Tim.
So you don't want the papers to report on the possibility of a member of the royal family being connected to child abuse? It would be MUCH dodgier if they were refusing to report it - there have been enough cover ups of powerful people abusing the vulnerable.
@2
Thank you for anonymously telling me that I want something I don't.
The press is free to report on what it likes. And I am free to comment on it. That is all.
"to report on the possibility"
wouldn't it be better to report on actualities?
The right to report something here is not in doubt, it's the usual lazy hackery that is questioned.
The fact is that court case is against one person but mud is being slung widely. Although the side allegations seem serious no official action appears to be ongoing.
Either the view of the US autorities is that there is no case to answer (and therefore no story) for HRH and others - or there is the serious (and hardwork for hacks) issue of a cover up. The hacks will report the mud but won't get off their arses and find out what the truth is. Which could make them just as guilty of being part of a cover up.
Which is why it is right to question their values.
You can act all offended and try and twist my words if you want but there's something grubby about trying to make it seem as though the papers are doing the wrong thing by reporting on this.
The daily mail etc suck and they are often responsible for inappropriate sexualization - but that shouldn't mean the public doesn't get to know when a member of the royal family is possibly having sex with children.
Sometimes you need to listen to the message rather than tearing apart the story of a child who's been abused for the sake of bringing down the messenger.
@5
The only person trying to twist words is you.
And no-one is suggesting that the press are wrong in reporting the story.
Also, please note that the abuse is alleged at present.
Post a Comment