Royal Sex Video: Scotland Yard Questions
THE Royal sex video continues to make news in the Sun, where the blueblood at the centre of the allegations is being addressed by members of Scotland Yard.
The royal is said to “vehemently deny” the claims. “Met sources say they are ‘totally satisfied’ the allegation made on tape is untrue,” notes the Sun.
So we’ll have no more said about the matter. Unless you read the Mail and learn of the Italian newspaper that has published a picture of the royal (clothed and decent, we are all but certain) and the legend: “Sex and coke at Buckingham Palace.”
The Italians should know that Buckingham Palace is but the Queen’s main London residence and if a royal were to engage in acts of gay sex and drug taking – which they do not – the words could just as easily read “Sex and coke at Clarence House”, “Sex and coke at St James’s Palace”, or “Sex and coke in darkened corner in the Royal Mews, ask for ‘Hugo’”.
“This is typical of the Italian media and serves not purpose,” says Giovanni Di Stefano, the lawyer acting on behalf of alleged blackmailer Ian Strachan.
Di Stefano says she has received numerous calls asking about the name of the alleged miscreant. Says he: “I asked them not to speculate as justice has to be done.”
And to search the internet like everyone else…
October 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
DOES ANYONE CARE?? The only bit I find offensive is cutting coke with a Harrods credit card. How naff is that? Yuk.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
And a lowly gold card at that…
October 31st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
With all the current comings and goings at the Palace, I am hoping Roger Cook will turn up in his infamous outfit and expose even more shenanigans!
October 31st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Is it not better to give than to receive? Is it not better to serve than to be served? Ich dien and all that in the family. Well then, why be ashamed and not proud?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:21 pm
SHE??? (Di Stefano).
Remember it was La Repubblica which broke the ‘banned’ Fawcett story.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Since nice Mr Anorak won’t let me post this on an earlier thread, I’ll put it here:
Rémy:
Yes… there are various things in the online and offline reports that don’t seem quite right.
Perhaps the bottom, er, line… is: why would Linley risk his job as chairman of Christies International, his marriage and custody of his children, police inquiries into supplying a class A drug, and much else, for a paltry 50 grand - especially since he’s just raised nearly £15m selling off some of the family (and nation’s) heirlooms through his own auction house.
In his position, I’d have quickly paid over, oh, a very small fraction of what I’d just made flogging off the Annigoni portrait of my mum (through my own auction house, possibly to my own sister, who was so furious about the sale she applied to bid on her own behalf).
Then there’s the repeated suggestion that the claims against Linley were only ‘one element’ in the allegations made on the tape. And what’s Linley doing knocking round with royal servants, anyway?
And I think the furniture is overpriced and boring. As with the trophy royal job at Christies, it’s just a way of selling the name he happened to be born with.
And as I say - I would have thought that the name, his main asset, was worth a paltry $50,000 to protect. Good investment.
So what’s REALLY going on?
Please let it be the George Smith tape after all!
PS: why a TAPE anyway? If it’s recent stuff, why on earth would it be on TAPE rather than DISC??????