|
|
|
| blog topics links porno |
|
Web Log Archives: November 02, 2003 - November 08, 2003 Saturday, November 8, 2003
He was a boy from Bexley who did well in home economics at school, and after leaving his local comprehensive did a silver service and cookery course at Westminster Kingsway College. In 1981 he applied successfully for a job as footman at Buckingham Palace, arriving at the Palace in a polyester jumper with few other possessions. Over the years he rose through the ranks to sergeant footman and then Charles's assistant valet, setting out his bespoke suits and Turnbull & Asser shirts every morning at Kensington Palace. [...] His downfall came last year when he was accused of selling unwanted gifts on behalf of the Prince in the wake of the trial of royal butler Paul Burrell, earning him the nickname "Fawcett the Fence". He resigned from his master's payroll this year after a report by the Prince's private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, which acknowledged that he was feared, loathed and envied by many of the 80 staff in the St James's Palace household. Also at This is London: Wife rose up ranks with valet.
There's more to it than that, but that's the core allegation. The British media are legally blocked from telling the story and naming names, though they can tell the story in one article and name names in another article. Charles has publicly denied that it ever happened. Some websites and European media outlets have reported the story in full. American and Canadian media have picked up the story, but most outlets are playing coy, reporting Charles's nonspecific denial and feigning ignorance of the actual allegations. What did Prince Charles not do? Charles didn't do it - whatever 'it' was. The British papers have a good reason for not telling the whole story with names: the country's overly strict libel laws prevent them from doing so. But why would North American media leave out the specifics? It took me just a few minutes to piece together the whole story from internet sources. For whatever reason, they're choosing to keep the allegation under wraps for now. The New York Times provides more detail but still requires readers to connect pieces of the puzzle: denial in one paragraph, allegation of "compromising sexual encounter" in another paragraph, gay angle in other paragraphs, names in still other paragraphs. [UPDATE: According to the Drudge Report, the New York Times website posted this article Friday afternoon with a more explicit account of the allegation, then pulled it down after twenty minutes. The original Times story read, "The allegation (although no one has said so publicly) has to do with purported sexual contact between Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers."] This article does nicely chronicle the escalation of the scandal. The allegation (which no one here has aired publicly, because of Britain's tough libel laws) first became an issue last year during the trial of Paul Burrell, former butler to the late Princess of Wales, who was unsuccessfully prosecuted on charges of stealing possessions from the princess's estate after her death in 1997. One item he was accused of stealing was a cassette tape that Diana had recorded several years earlier. On the tape, according to news reports, George Smith, a former royal servant who had suffered from alcoholism and post-traumatic stress syndrome after fighting in the Falklands War, said he had been raped by another male royal aide. More explosively, he also claimed to have witnessed a compromising sexual encounter involving a member of the royal family. At the time, Mr. Smith's account threw the ravening British tabloid press into an almost unbearably frustrating quandary, once they figured out who was said to be involved. Yearning to print the rumors but restrained by the law, the newspapers went the suggestion route, continually printing the same odd photograph of Prince Charles standing with another man in a field, without explaining why the photograph had any significance. Last month, Mr. Burrell began publicizing his tell-all book, "A Royal Duty," mentioning the now notorious tape and saying that revealing its contents would have disastrous consequences for the country. Newspapers seized on the issue again and the allegations began appearing on various Web sites. On a completely tangential note — post-traumatic stress syndrome from the Falklands War?!? The big question that hasn't been raised yet: how "disastrous" would full revelation really be for the royals? Would a bisexual king really be that big a deal in this day and age? UPDATE: Several readers have pointed out that the Falklands War, though short as wars go, saw some brutal combat. Wikipedia has a good overview of the Falklands War. Reader Dave M. adds: George Smith was in the Welsh Guards, and was on board the 'Sir Galahad' (a landing ship) when it was bombed by the Argentinean Air Force on June 8th 1982, along with its sister ship, the 'Sir Tristram' at Bluff Cove. Both ships were overloaded with men, stores and munitions, which they'd been transporting from an earlier landing site. Both caught fire and went up like rockets. 51 men died, and another 48 were injured. It was the worst single loss for the British during the Falklands campaign. Mea culpa. Friday, November 7, 2003
In the biggest royal whodunnit of them all, Britain's future king and recent royal visitor to India, Prince Charles, has unprecedentedly issued a public statement denying any part in a mystery sexual palace scandal thought to be severely damaging to the monarchy. The allegations, said to be so serious as to bring the badly-bruised British monarchy to its knees, are still unpublished. Details of the allegations, which cannot be repeated by any media outlet for legal reasons, are thought to be contained on an audio-tape recording made by Diana before they divorced. The tape records George Smith making a number of allegations about a "senior member of the royal family". The Prince authorised his private secretary, almost as soon as he left India, to name him as the senior royal at the centre of an unpublished sexual allegation. The aide vehemently denied the allegation and pointed out the unreliableness of the former royal servant making the claims. The royal family and a former aide have been trying to block the scandal story for a week. The Mail on Sunday (which doesn't have a website) planned to run the story last weekend, but a court injunction blocked them. An unidentified "senior member of the royal family" also personally asked the Mail on Sunday to quash the story. Another court injunction blocked papers from revealing who had sought the first court injunction. The Guardian fought that restriction and won the right to identify the injunction-seeker as Michael Fawcett, a former aide to Prince Charles. The Mail on Sunday is still trying to overturn the injunction against publishing the whole story. Doesn't this all sound quaintly pre-web? "If the newspapers don't print it, no one will ever find out." There's an old saying on the internet: unsubstantiated allegations want to be free. Three minutes on Usenet and Google led me to Throne Out, which fills in background and details of the mystery scandal (Daze Reader inserted the names in brackets to make things more clear). There are actually 2 allegations. The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal [Michael Fawcett] is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various video tapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawl of his complaint. The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal [Fawcett] was found in bed with that royal [Prince Charles] by a servant [Smith]. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana. The first part has been public for some time. The Guardian reported on Smith's rape and cover-up allegation a year ago. The new allegation which threatens "to bring the badly-bruised British monarchy to its knees" is that Prince Charles was also sleeping with Michael Fawcett. The Sun recently ran the story without identifying either man. Royal 'in bed with flunkey'. Ex-valet George Smith is said to have told Princess Diana he saw a "shocking incident" between the Royal and his servant. His brother Bryan said Diana taped their conversation — in which George also claimed he was twice raped by the male aide. But the 60-minute recording is missing. Bryan, 41, said George saw the men in bed when he delivered breakfast one morning. He said: "George said the Royal and his servant were tucked up under the sheets next to each other. "George told me there was no physical activity but you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to work out what was going on." Some second-hand versions on alt.gossip.royalty have Smith claiming to have seen Charles and Fawcett in flagrante, but that's probably just embellishment. BBC News has a profile of Michael Fawcett, the trusted senior aide to Prince Charles at the center of both allegations. More on the royal troubles. UPDATE: The Sunday Mirror ran a long story last weekend, without identifying either Prince Charles or Michael Fawcett by name. Revealed: Secrets of the 'Rape Tape'. So the story is out there, and the names of Prince Charles and Michael Fawcett are out there — but it's currently illegal to publish the story in England with the names included. UPDATE: Royal rumour stories leak in Europe. "Efforts by the Prince of Wales's household to quash rumours of a sexual incident involving the future king suffered a further setback yesterday as the allegations were published in European news outlets and on foreign-language websites." Wow, who could have anticipated that?
They met the night before at the extravagant champagne and cocktail-fuelled film premiere at the Opera House - just a short stumble from her hotel suite at the Quay Grand in Circular Quay. The pair were photographed at the premiere, with Hilton looking seductively at 21-year-old Mills who was voted out of the Idol competition two weeks ago, despite winning a legion of mainly female fans. The article ends with this context-free but incredibly great quote. In a magazine story about sister Nicky's 21st birthday, Paris Hilton said: "Nobody wants the beaten-up Prada purse on Canal Street. Everyone wants the brand new colourful Louis Vuitton one that no one can get. Guys don't want a girl who's been around the block."
Hilton's representatives acknowledge the tape is real, but are understandably angry about the prospect of it going public. "This was something she did with Rick while they were dating after he was no longer with Shannen, and it was something that was intended for their own personal use," said a representative for the 22-year-old hotel chain heiress. "This tape was never intended to be viewed by the public and it is in poor taste that someone has decided to release it," they said. "It was for themselves," Garber added. "Not everybody indulges in that, but couples do it sometimes and it's just for themselves, for fun. She never intended for it to be seen by anybody other than the two of them." Hilton's lawyers are threatening legal action against anyone who distributes the tape or fails to destroy their copy of it. They are also trying to determine whether Solomon, 33, was involved in releasing the tape. Someone at the adult webmaster forum Go Fuck Yourself mentioned that there's a video clip on KaZaa called "parishilton2.mpg" labeled as the Hilton-Solomon sex video. He posted these stills (click here for the full-size unmasked versions).
The poster added, "doubt its her cuz that tattoo i couldnt find on any of the paris hilton pictures and the girl in the screen caps also has a big tribal tat above her ass." Several more skeptics followed up: (1) Looks like alot of fake wood in the background and it's a really small looking room for a multi-millionaire's home. (2) Definetely NOT her... but a good fake. Only a pro porn stunt cock knows how to do that up & over position with expert viewing of the pussy like that. (3) I can't believe the obvious point that no one has mentioned: There is clearly a third person working the camera. I doubt that Paris would have her butler in the room filming her fuck festivals. (4) Also, a lil too professional on the angles of the cams.. When I hide my cams they dont auto zoom on the puss and my big schlong. Finally someone resolved the mystery by pointing out that this is a clip of pornstar Krystal Steal in Up and Cummers #98.
UPDATE: Interview with Young Hae Chang Heavy Industries. "We combine text with jazz to create Flash pieces. It's a simple technique that shuns interactivity, graphics, photos, illustrations, banners, colors, and all but the Monaco font, and at the same time cuts across the lines separating digital animation, motion graphics, experimental video, i-movies, and e-poetry. To us, though, it's Web art." Earlier work: Samsung Means to Come. Thursday, November 6, 2003
Debra Hyde takes issue with Wolf's "more idyllic memory of coming of age in the 1970s" and argues that sexual imagery, pressures and insecurities haven't changed all that much for young women. Hyde also stresses the importance for parents to talk with kids about sex and "help our children more with understanding sexuality and sexual reality." Great essay. Debra sounds like the world's coolest mom. (On a side note, I originally misread the title of this post as "Not quite a fisting ..." — must get that image out of my head NOW.) Richard Evans Lee riffs on David Amsden's cyberporn addiction piece. "The only web pornography addict I know has a plentiful, happy sex life. I’ll be damned if heterosexual people don’t have a knack for making sex complicated. No wonder they make people like Dr. Phil rich." Points and counterpooints linked earlier: Naomi Wolf, David Amsden, Carly from Pornblography, Heather Corinna.
If you lived in a small town in the 1940s or ’50s, it was virtually impossible not to know about a film called Mom and Dad. Sooner or later a flamboyant publicity man would drive into town, the ads would appear, and the tempestuous debate would begin. Plastered on every available storefront, barn, bus bench, and shoeshine stand was a poster seducing you with an attractive couple in mid-kiss and black bold-faced ballyhoo exploding all around them. And in a black box in the lower left-hand corner: "Extra! IN PERSON: ELLIOT FORBES, ‘THE SECRETS OF SENSIBLE SEX.’" Alarmed letters to the editor would appear in the newspaper. Clergymen would express opinions from the pulpit. If you were Catholic, you’d be banned from attending. In some towns the police would send men to check the film for violations of the obscenity statutes. And as soon as the first women-only matinee was screened, at 2 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, the town would blaze with Mom and Dad gossip. Though all but forgotten today, Mom and Dad was so heavily promoted that Time once remarked that the ad campaign "left only the livestock unaware of the chance to learn the facts of life." But this was not Hollywood promotion. In fact, Hollywood spent 20 years campaigning to get rid of movies like Mom and Dad. This was the last wave of the 19th-century medicine shows -- part biology lesson, part sideshow, part morality play, part medical "shock footage" -- and to this day many old-timers regard it as the purest and most successful exploitation film in history. It played continuously for 23 years, still booking drive-ins as late as 1977, and grossed an estimated $100 million. This piece appeared in the newsstand edition of Reason a few weeks ago. Long but well worth reading in full. Elsewhere: photo of crowd lined up for Mom and Dad in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan; another essay showing the cover of a sex hygiene manual sold at screenings. Wednesday, November 5, 2003
"The Supreme Court in its Wednesday session announced that appearing naked in beauty contests is totally un-Islamic, is against Afghan tradition, human honour and dignity," state news agency Bhakter reported. "Based on the holy religion of Islam any one who attends such contests no matter what religion or country they belong to is condemned to hell," the report added. The Washington Post ran a story about the controversy last week. In short order, the minister of women's affairs -- a woman -- denounced Samadzai's actions as "lascivious" and "not representing Afghan women." The Afghan Embassy in Washington issued a statement saying her participation had not been authorized by the Kabul government. And a senior official of the Supreme Court and the Kabul religious scholars' committee condemned her swimsuit appearance as "completely unacceptable and unlawful in Islam." It was not only knee-jerk prudery that caused such an appalled response, but something more complex. The Afghan government, backed by the Bush administration and the United Nations, has been picking its way through a religious and cultural minefield as it seeks to promote women's rights and other modern, international values without alienating devout Muslims or provoking influential fundamentalist groups.None of these news stories explain how exactly Samadzai gained her title. Islam Online reports, "Samadzai, or Miss Afghanistan as she will be known in the competition, has told the BBC Persian service that the Afghan embassy in Washington asked her to represent Afghanistan in the competition. But the embassy categorically denied the statement as groundless." More and more.
Representatives of Alyon and a client company defended their billing methods in an Adult Video News story in July.
In regard to my previous post on this case, an astute reader informs that I misread the article: "Lindsi" was an audience member at the trial, not a juror. Mea culpa.
A study has shown that domestic cats infected with a parasite called toxoplasma gondii can actually alter the personalities of their human owners, turning women into "sex kittens" and men into "alley cats." "We found they [the infected women] were more easygoing, more warm-hearted, had more friends and cared more about how they looked. However, they were also less trustworthy and had more relationships with men," Dr. Jaroslav Flegr, who conducted the study at Charles University in Prague, told London’s Sunday Times newspaper. Infected men, on the other hand, became more aggressive, less well-groomed, undesirable loners who were more likely to be suspicious and jealous. [...] According to Flegr's findings, infected women spent more money on clothes and were consistently rated as more attractive. By contrast, infected men became less attractive and more anti-social. Leading non-scientists at the Daze Institute add this corollary: owning more than three cats or talking baby talk to your cats is extremely unsexy, regardless how diseased they might be. Monday, November 3, 2003
The author debunks another Kubrick conspiracy theory. "Some also allege Kubrick filmed NASA's faked 'moon landings' and wrote the 'script' for the Apollo 13 disaster/hoax. This is unlikely -- not because the theory is far-fetched, but because the camera work on the moon landing lacked Kubrick's unique style." (Link snagged from Aberrant News.)
Sunday, November 2, 2003
|
|
The reality TV talent quest's Robert "Millsy" Mills and the petite 22-year-old Hilton hotel chain heiress were spotted snogging and taking photos of each other on the balcony of the fashionista's luxury suite in Sydney yesterday.
