Gosh, golly, just as Her Majesty was looking forward to another annus mirabilis, the new dawn looks more like another annus horribilis, or perhaps terribilis.
One of her sons, Prince Andrew, The Duke of York, is named in allegations centred around the paedophile convicted American financier, Jeffrey Epstein, allegations made by a woman who claims she was loaned out to his ‘friends’ in a sex-trafficking arrangement over many years. Epstein is now a registered sex offender.
The same girl, identified as Ms. Virginia Roberts, also met the Queen. In time she escaped from the spider’s web, (the girl, not the Queen) met a good man, (yes, a few do exist) got married, and moved to Australia to begin a new life. They have three children.
A Word In Your Ear
Do we care about the fate of the Royal family? After all, Her Majesty was lobbied by Westminster politicians, David Cameron the most notable, to say something, anything, in favour of the Union, her advisers reiterated time and time again that she does not meddle in daily governance. But she did.
The remark she made, ‘I hope people will think carefully,’ only had relevance for Yes voters, demanding they think twice about being unpatriotic. There is no other interpretation. No wonder she ‘purred’ with pleasure when Cameron told her she was still free to visit Balmoral without paying a toll at the border, or having to remove her jacket, belt and Barbour boots. The Queen intervened in Scotland’s democratic Referendum in order to hold onto power. And she sent her grandson and his wife to tell the faithful his wife was pregnant, again – hooray! – in what seemed ten hurried minutes after she conceived. Another Windsor to feed and house. Who knows how many converts Her Majesty created to the cause of Scottish republicanism.
We are expected to retain the right to be as miserable as our English cousins. Fine. But what’s this? Illicit sex and princely sinners? And Prince Andrew lobbying on behalf of a known criminal, and on innumerable occasions?
Are you sitting comfortably?
The Pleasures of Princes
Claiming innocence, Prince Andrew is accused of cavorting to a carnal degree with an underage girl, she forced to his bed, or on the sofa, television still blaring, or by the poolside, or among the Abutilon shrubbery – who knows? – gifted by his big business associates, a sweetener, a way of securing his loyalty.
What the prince was thinking of by associating with a known criminal after Epstein had served time is something that does not reflect well on his royal ability to play safe. Then again, who does the Royal family associate with but known criminals in the political and financial classes? Yorkie forgot to use discretion when defending Jeffrey Epstein.
Other women have been known to be ‘trafficked’ by Epstein, but when asked if Prince Andrew was a ‘client’ they invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer.
Chose a Girl, any Girl
It’s an old trick. Welcome into your society somebody who might be very useful to your empire or immediate objectives, or who comes to you unsolicited to gain financial investment in some project, or seeking help to pay a debt. Give him the impression you are friends for life, a confidante, and to reinforce the pals act loan him a leggy hooker for the night, take a few photographs or a video – the houses of rich, powerful men have CCTV cameras everywhere – and keep the evidence in the wall safe for discreet use when needed, and pretend they are on an equal level, pals … until the excreta hits the fan.
The hooker, or unwilling ingénue, is introduced into his company at a dinner, deliberately placed next to the target at table, and at some point drilled into whispering, “I find you irresistibly sexy,” or some other phrase denoting she is his for the night. A weak man is easily flattered. A good man, an honest man, knows sensuality comes easily to few men. In reality, Yorkie has all the sexual allure of a Yorkshire pudding.
It’s the way of big business everywhere. Every man has his price, and if he has not, blackmail him. German car makers allocating prostitutes to union leaders to ‘help’ reach a deal on wages, film producers tainting the good judgement of their new director to keep him in check, and so on, and so forth goes the pantomime of sex for reasons of blackmail.
And There’s More
Another powerful man named in the ring of child sex is the US lawyer, Alan Dershowitz. He proclaims he will not rest until he shows the claims to be false, and he ‘advised the Duke of York to do everything in his power to clear his name.’ Dershowitz drops a thudding hint it’s every man for himself. Who said a raven will not peck out the eye of another raven? Dershowitz is the main subject of this essay, but more of him later.
The Royal family has a very long history of squalid affairs, loose morals, tales stifled of staff abuse. Traditionally, the press hid the evidence, turning a blind eye. British royalty are devoid of ‘doing it,’ are they not?
Yorkie’s inability to stay clear of situations that might lead inexorably to bribes brings to mind all the sleaze and squalid stories of the uncontrollable, boozy Princess Margaret. If ever there was a supreme man-chaser and freeloader, Princess Margaret was queen, and practised it regularly, anything in trousers free game, free flights, stays in other people’s homes, clothes, food, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ her cri de coeur.
Not a Nice Man
Whenever I have seen Alan Dershowitz interviewed on US television, giving a lecture or in debate, his style of communication is invariably highly aggressive, on the attack, using mockery to demean his opponent, and coincidences of coincidences, that is how he responds to being named another paedophile in Epstein’s coterie of camp followers. His demeanour does not attract you to him. He reminds me of the all-Blacks rugby team prior to the start of the game shouting and hooting, adding hostile gestures to ugly faces to frighten their opponents. Repetition renders it an entertaining ritual.
Dershowitz advises Yorkie to do the same which, of course, Yorkie won’t do. A few denials from the Palace, each stronger than the last, is all the Royal household feels obliged to do. ‘The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.’
Dershowitz has filed a counter-claim against the unfortunate girl’s lawyers, arguing the story is false, knowingly false, that the lawyers and their client conspire against him, to create a false story.
“We know she lied about [having sex with] other public figures, including a prime minister,” he averred, “So I think it must be presumed all her allegations against Prince Andrew are false as well.”
Are they? And did she really lie about other public figures? Why? For what purpose? Is this the start of a methodical campaign to defame the accuser? So far, surprisingly, he has not claimed she is a professional hooker mining for gold.
I can think of easier ways of earning money, such as blackmailing a friend with a hooker. Sound and fury. Alarms and excursions. He wants Ms. Roberts’ lawyers disbarred.
He wants them to shut the hell up.
Under US law you can name others in a court action without taking them to court. You name them to show that the accused’s crime is not singular, not an aberration, it has precedent and pattern. The objective is to get the accused jailed, the judge deciding on the length of imprisonment set against the depth of the crime. Other aggrieved victims tend to be content that the accused is off the streets.
Dershowitz is not having it all his own way. He has received a formal request from Roberts’ lawyers to be subject to a deposition. The letter asks Dershowitz to bring passport pages reflecting his travel over the last decade and “all photographs taken while you were a traveling companion or house guest of Jeffrey Epstein’s”.
The Good, the Bad, and the Plug Ugly
Before he became a champion for Israeli aggression, Dershowitz was one of the chief defence lawyers in famous trials: O. J. Simpson, Patty Hearst, Claus von Bülow, Mike Tyson, the tax avoiding Leona Hemsley, and weeping evangelist, Jim Bakker, among others. (He claims to have been a lawyer for Nelson Mandela but that claim appears out of character.) He has won most of his murder trials. Dershowitz is not a man who likes to lose. He also defended Epstein, getting him a reduced sentence on the back of plea bargaining, that is, admitting to a lesser offence, a quirky escape route unique in the west to USA law.
But what no newspaper tells us, (none I have read) is that in so doing, Dershowitz managed to get a clause inserted into the plea bargain agreement that barred any future case against anybody associated with the sex scandal, and Epstein. Neat. Epstein takes the hit for them all, and a modest one at that. Meanwhile, a black youngster in a poor district gets shot dead by police for stealing an apple.
The Whirling Dershowitz
Now we come to Dershowitz and his nemesis, Noam Chomsky.
An example of the Dershowitz bellicose way with weasely words can be found in his attitude to Israel, his outlook encapsulated in his 2003 book, ‘The Case For Israel.’ He calls himself a liberal but by all standards he appears to the right of Dick Chaney, not a surprise in the land that denies the working class exist.
Supporting the black arts of Israel’s murderous politicians does not come as a surprise. He is the son of an orthodox Jewish Brooklyn couple. His teachers found him rebellious. “They told me to become something that needs a “big mouth and no brain” … so I became a lawyer.” He sees himself as a ‘libertarian,’ (in the debased US interpretation) a Jewish activist, and a Mensch. He is against censorship of sexual pornography.
Dershowitz probably coined the derogatory phrase, “Planet Chomsky,” an expression he has used often when in hard-nosed debate with the worlds foremost linguistics professor, philosopher, logician, and political rebel.
Here is a slightly abridged section from a Harvard Speech Society debate, ‘Israel and Palestine after Disengagement,’ (2005) between Dershowitz and Chomsky. Two points to note: See how he waffles in a plausible way to suggest Chomsky is an anti-Semite – Chomsky is Jewish, but from European stock – and note how Chomsky hoists Dershowitz by his own petard, and does it in a few short sentences.
Dershowitz: Let me respond. First of all, listen to the words. There’s an element of racism in one of the phrases we’ve heard today [from Chomsky] in describing this as a “Jewish highway”. One point, two million Israelis are Arabs. Many of them are Christians. There is no such thing as a Jewish highway in Israel. There … is nothing in Israel that is opened only to Jews, even synagogues. Everything is open to Israeli Arabs, every road is opened to an Israeli Arab. When the peace solution is finally proposed, had the Camp David and Taba accords been accepted, the Palestinians would be free to build any – they choose. And indeed, Israel has offered a super-highway and a super-roadway between Gaza and Jerusalem-I’m sorry, between Gaza and Hebron… I am waiting for some creative, positive, imaginative solutions from Professor Chomsky. All we’re hearing is a recitation of the past and a pessimistic notion of “as long as the American evil empire and Israel are involved, there will be no peace.”
Chomsky: Well, I congratulate Mr. Dershowitz again for one true statement. They are not Jewish roads. They are Israeli roads. That is, they are roads of the sovereign-well, I’m quoting the High Court-the sovereign state of the Jewish people in Israel and the diaspora. And that’s correct.
The problem for that peace process, and indeed, for Dershowitz’s admiration of the state of Israel is, the USA is the biggest supporter of Israel’s aggression giving that nation billions of aid and weapons annually. If the policeman offering to intervene in negotiations between you and your belligerent neighbour happens to be a member of that family, you won’t place any trust in his ability to be even-handed.
But I digress only to show how well Chomsky’s intuition for a dissembler is proved correct.
Ms. Roberts says she was 17 when she first met the Duke of York in London, claiming she was forced to have sexual contact with him by Epstein, in London, New York and on his private island in the Caribbean during an “orgy”.
We have several prominent, powerful men reeling on their heels, accused of debauchery and organised paedophilia. This is not a case where money, domineering lawyers, or the military might of Israel will come to the aid of the party – if you will excuse the pun. That leaves the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to be the chump.
Let us hope no amount of bluff, double bluff, or bluster will hide the truth.
In a legal paper opposing the order, one keeping the detail of Epstein’s plea bargaining secret, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, the lawyers for Ms. Roberts, said: “There is an overriding interest in having these matters exposed to public light. There is considerable public interest in the question of how a serial child molester could arrange such a lenient plea agreement.”
Meanwhile, the unfortunate woman’s lawyers requested Prince Andrew give evidence. The Palace refused to accept the letter. Royalty, it appears, are above the law.
With London’s Metropolitan police force investigating child murder and rape carried out by Westminster politicians in a giant cover-up, and the Royal Family saying their son of York kept himself free of loose women – though not bad company – and Her Majesty unable to claim she never laid a bejeweled, gloved finger on the Referendum result, who and the British Establishment to govern Scotland?