The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Duchess of York and entrapment by undercover reporter

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Duchess of York and entrapment by undercover reporter

Post by ufercoffy on 24.05.10 7:32

By Mazher Mahmood, Investigations Editor, 23/05/2010
THE Duchess of York is shamelessly plotting to sell access to her trade envoy ex-hubby Prince Andrew for £500,000.



Greedy Sarah Ferguson, 50, was filmed on Tuesday night taking a $40,000 (£27,000) cash down-payment from an undercover News of the World reporter.




Sarah Ferguson shamelessly plots to sell access to Prince Andrew for £500,000




Unknown to the Prince, Fergie PROMISED to introduce us to him, CLAIMED he'd help fix lucrative deals and DEMANDED a cut of all profits. She vowed: "Look after me and he'll look after you. . . you'll get it back tenfold. I can open any door you want."
As the Duchess of York set out her stall, she blatantly put a price tag on an introduction to Britain's unsuspecting trade envoy Prince, opening the door to lucrative international deals.
CASHING IN: Fergie thrills to sight of $40k



Behind her ex's back, Fergie claimed to have discussed it with him and lied: "Andrew said to me, 'Tell him £500,000.'

"He knows that he's had to underwrite me up to now because I've got no money. So if you want to meet him in your business, look after me and he'll look after you. . . you'll get it back tenfold."

The greedy 50-year-old Duchess, who believed she was dealing with a rich businessman, was then filmed at a secret meeting pocketing an extra $40,000 down-payment in cash.

Along the way she also INSISTED on one per cent commission on any deals we might strike due to her royal connections, and DEMANDED we wire the main £½million backhander into her private HSBC bank account.

After the shady deal was sealed with a handshake just before midnight on Tuesday Fergie again tried to drag unwitting Prince Andrew, also 50, into it. She bragged: "That opens up everything you would ever wish for. And I can open any door you want. And I will for you."

Her astonishing offer will shock the Queen, the royal family and the Government, for the loose cannon Duchess's ludicrous claims that Prince Andrew - unpaid UK Special Representative for Trade and Investment - could be party to such a scam jeopardise Britain's global reputation for honesty and fair play.

And her willingness to give an unvetted businessman access to her Who's Who contacts book of the world's most influential figures raises huge security fears.
IN THE BAG: Fergie grabs the cash



We began investigating the scandal after a close royal associate blew the whistle and told us Fergie was already cashing in on unknowing Andrew by setting up deals with foreign businessmen. She even claimed she had set up a new company last month to handle the dodgy transactions.

And the News of the World has details of TWO tycoons she boasted she had introduced to Prince Andrew.

After our investigators infiltrated her close circle of associates, Fergie agreed to a private meeting with our man, posing as an international tycoon, without once checking his credentials.

That first meeting was at a New York hotel, after Fergie had primed her aides to try to persuade our man to pay a hefty advance fee of $40,000.

READ MORE: Fergie pleads poverty as she plots betrayal
READ MORE: Rollercoaster of scandal

Then - again without any security checks - brazen Fergie texted our man on Monday to arrange a dinner meeting back in London at the exclusive Mosimann's dining club the following night. In a bid to keep the deal under wraps, she sent an advance party of two assistants to the Belgravia restaurant with a detailed seven-page confidentiality agreement they claimed the Duchess wanted signed BEFORE the dinner date.

The contract would effectively prevent our reporter ever discussing anything he had spoken about with Fergie to anyone - a voluntary gagging order.

But even though our reporter refused to sign the document, cash-strapped Fergie still turned up and willingly chatted away.

At a discreet corner table the grinning Duchess - who was wearing a blue suit - immediately dragged her unsuspecting former husband into the negotiations by claiming: "I did ask Andrew about meeting you."

FERGIE: I never talk about money ever, but since we've got business hats on I'm going to...

REPORTER: Sure.

FERGIE: So I said to Andrew, well what do I do because really I think you two could really do some good business together and I think, I think what would happen is that you would. He never makes money because he's ambassador for trade.

REPORTER: Of course, sure.

FERGIE: So he wouldn't want to.

REPORTER: No of course, no, no.

FERGIE: But I can. So he would. . . introduce you to whoever, but it wouldn't be about HIM it would be about ME.
DINNER DATE: Duchess at Mosimann's



The Duke and Duchess of York divorced in 1996 but have remained close friends.

And as she tucked into her £12.50 pea soup accompanied by a £95 bottle of burgundy, she made it clear she was willing to try to exploit that closesness.

FERGIE: I could bring you great business. I'd like to think that if I, for example, if I introduced you to...

REPORTER: Andrew for example?

FERGIE: Andrew for example. . . and he opened up doors for you which you would never possibly do.

Then, depending if it was a very big deal with I don't know, I can't imagine, then each deal you and I discuss the percentage of it.

REPORTER: Absolutely.

FERGIE: And so that's what we would be doing.

REPORTER: That's absolutely clear, no problem whatsoever.

Fergie then insisted any such arrangement must be kept secret - even from the aides who had just left the restaurant.

And she proceeded to describe how she planned to manipulate her relationship with the Prince to her advantage behind his back.

FERGIE: Perhaps he might just mention to me some of the, you know. . .

REPORTER: Viable projects?

FERGIE: Some really interesting things which I might find interesting. And I'll look into them and maybe then they will ask me to find investments, in which case I might come to you.

At that point the Duchess made her totally unfounded allegation that Andrew suggested the £500,000 introduction fee. She assured our man it would be "a good investment".

As the £30 main course of lamb and vegetables arrived, attention turned to the $40,000 advance.

When told that the bundles of $20 notes were waiting for her at our man's apartment around the corner, she promised him a kiss on payment.

Throughout the dinner suspicious Fergie kept asking if our man was a reporter from the News of the World or another paper. But the thought of cash in hand proved more convincing than her fears.

At one point conversation moved to Fergie's daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. Beatrice recently became the first royal to complete the London marathon.

When our undercover reporter said he wished he'd sponsored her, greedy Fergie quipped: "No, you're sponsoring the mother!"

After our reporter picked up the £223.25 dinner bill plus £50 tip, Fergie happily jumped into the back of a limo with him - again carelessly risking her personal security - and was chauffeured to the Mayfair flat.

There she boasted about her privileged position and proclaimed: "I'm a complete aristocrat. Love that don't you? I love it. It's tremendously fabulous. But I've never admitted that to anyone by the way!" As she relaxed on the sofa with a glass of wine, Fergie asked our man to donate one per cent of profits from any business deals to her charity, set up to build schools in Asia.

But she soon remembered that charity begins at home.

FERGIE: Next! On to the next thing, £500,000, when you can, to me. . . open doors.

REPORTER: It would be Prince Andrew?

FERGIE: Yeah.

REPORTER: Is that a deal?

FERGIE: Yeah.

REPORTER: But I've got to give you $40,000.

FERGIE: Yeah.

REPORTER: Which I've got now as a deposit. Which is in my safe. But how am I going to give it to you? I haven't got a bag.

At that point the grinning Duchess made a silent "Gimme!" motion with her hand. She then accompanied our man into the next room, watched as he pulled out wads of crisp notes from the safe and carried them into the lounge, and then gasped: "Oh my God, you are a genius!" She said the money would go towards paying school fees for an old friend in the States. But as she stared at the pile of cash before her Fergie was prompted to get down to business again - and the outstanding £500,000.

FERGIE: Yeah OK but then if you want to go and do a big deal with Andrew, then that's the big one.

REPORTER: I do. Of course. OK, no, of course. So you need 500,000 in pounds. . .

FERGIE: But that's in wire transfer.

REPORTER: That has to be in wire transfer, I mean obviously.

FERGIE: That's a wire transfer that's completely above board. And that goes straight to wire transfer.

REPORTER: Who do we send that to?

FERGIE: You send it to the bank account that I tell you to send it to.

REPORTER: If you give me the bank account details I'll arrange that, no problem at all.

FERGIE: Then that, is then like, then you open up all the channels whatever you need, whatever you want, and then that's what and then you meet Andrew and that's fine. And that's, that's when you really open up whatever you want.

The Duchess then boasted of her special bond with Andrew. "He's so amazing," she said. "We're the happiest divorced couple in the world."

But then she stretched credulity by claiming her ex told her he'd happily play along with her cash-for-access plot.

FERGIE: And as Andrew said, 'Listen, if he's (our reporter) going to be kind enough to want to play, then Andrew will play.'

REPORTER: Let's play!

FERGIE: And he (Andrew) says, 'Let's play, we'll play' as long as it's nothing to do with him. . . But you will be his friend.

I will listen to the friendship talk between you two. And then I do it.

REPORTER: OK.

FERGIE: You two talk.

REPORTER: Right

FERGIE: I listen.

REPORTER: OK.

FERGIE: Then I activate. . . he meets the most amazing people. And he just throws them my way.

REPORTER: He throws them your way, fantastic. Well, and you throw them my way.

FERGIE: Yes. But, we, we, I've never said that. . . he never does accept a penny for anything. . .he does not and will not and he is completely whiter than white.

READ MORE: Fergie pleads poverty as she plots betrayal
READ MORE: Rollercoaster of scandal


How she lied about Prince Andrew


FERGIE: So I said to Andrew, 'Well, what do I do?' Because really I think you two could really do some good business together and I think, I think what would happen is that you would, he never makes money because he's ambassador for trade.

................
FERGIE: If you want to go and then if we want to do a big deal with Andrew, then that's the big one.

REPORTER: I do. Of course. OK. No, of course. So you need 500,000 in pounds. . .

FERGIE: But that's in wire transfer.

REPORTER: That has to be in wire transfer, I mean obviously.

FERGIE: That's a wire transfer that's completely above board. And that goes straight to wire transfer.

REPORTER: Who do we send that to?

FERGIE: You send it to the bank account that I tell you to send it to.

REPORTER: If you give me the bank account details I'll arrange that, no problem at all.

FERGIE: Then that, is then like then you open up all the channels whatever you need, whatever you want, and then that's what and then you meet Andrew and that's fine. And that's, that's when you really open up whatever you want.

................

FERGIE: And as Andrew said, 'Listen, if he's going to be kind enough to want to play, then Andrew will play.'

REPORTER: Let's play!

FERGIE: And he says 'Let's play, we'll play' - as long as it's nothing to do with him.

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Duchess of York and entrapment by undercover reporter

Post by ufercoffy on 24.05.10 7:35

What on earth was this all about? Why did the News of the World do this?

And why can't an undercover reporter like....erm, Jo do the same to the McCanns if this kind of entrapment is ethical - after all, Gunnill thought nothing of entraping Tony Bennett did he?



Discuss.

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Duchess of York and entrapment by undercover reporter

Post by kary on 24.05.10 8:11

Stephen Glover: Entrapment is a perfectly valid tool
Media Studies: If journalists fret about the consequences of what they write we can say goodbye to revealing journalism

Monday, 24 May 2010


Two Sundays in succession have produced major entrapment stories. Yesterday the News Of The World revealed that the Duchess of York had offered to sell access to her former husband Prince Andrew for a cool £500,000. Seven days earlier, The Mail On Sunday reported that Lord Triesman, the chairman of the Football Association, had accused Spain and Russia of planning to bribe referees in this summer's World Cup.

What interests me is the different responses to these entrapments. The Mail On Sunday sting was almost universally condemned by commentators and footballers. Amid much righteous indignation, Gary Lineker resigned the lucrative column he wrote for the paper.

Related articles
Duchess of York left 'devastated' after newspaper sting

Phillip Knightley: A cheap way to deliver quick results as newspapers slug it out in hard times
Search the news archive for more stories


Some suggested that The Mail On Sunday scraped the barrel by using Melissa Jacobs, with whom Lord Triesman had enjoyed a fling, to extract these views from him. Entrapment was judged seedy, intrusive and wrong.

By contrast, no one seems very aerated about the News Of The World's entrapment of "Fergie". The general view is that she, and probably her former husband, had it coming to them. Why the difference? Many people disliked the Mail On Sunday story because it jeopardised England's 2018 World Cup bid, whereas no one gives a fig for Fergie, or is much surprised, though some may feel sorry for the Queen that she should be even distantly associated with her.

Perhaps it would be more grown-up to work out what we think about entrapment as a journalistic device. In normal life nice people do not try to entrap one another.

It is sneaky and underhand. But journalists for these purposes are not particularly nice people and neither, often, are the people they entrap. You cannot easily encourage a person to say or do something out of character, though one can imagine exceptions where extreme pressure might be put on someone.

The primary test should not be that of consequence. You might feel it is highly regrettable that The Mail On Sunday has jeopardised England's bid. I might feel that the News Of The World's sting indirectly damages the monarchy, and is part of its owner, Rupert Murdoch's, republican agenda. We may both be right, but that is beside the point. If journalists fret about the consequences of what they write – as long as it is true and lawfully obtained – we can say goodbye to revealing journalism.

Significance is the test. It is significant that the (now former) chairman of the FA thinks the Spanish and Russians a bunch of crooks. If he is right, I should like to know more, and if he is wrong I should like to know how he formed his view in the first place.

It wasn't the best story in the world, but it wasn't a terrible one. The Fergie story was stronger, though in view of her known character it was hardly along the lines of "St Francis of Assisi caught stealing from the poor". Neither story makes us feel better about the world, but both were justifiable.

Is Rusbridger softening his stance on paywalls?

Last week's debate on Radio 4's Media Show between John Witherow and Alan Rusbridger was billed as the clash of two irredeemably opposed points of view. The former, editor of The Sunday Times, is in favour of "paywalls", which his newspaper and The Times will introduce soon. The latter, editor of The Guardian, has been philosophically opposed to making online newspaper readers pay, and has crossed swords with Rupert Murdoch, Mr Witherow's boss, on the issue.

Yet the evangelical favour that has characterised Mr Rusbridger's previous eulogies about free access on the internet was largely absent. In his 2010 Cudlipp Lecture delivered four months ago, he declared: "[Paying] removes you from the way people now connect with each other." In other words, online newspapers should be free because that is the nature of the web. Yet last week he admitted "the truth is no one knows" whether or not paywalls are the right answer, and conceded that if Mr Murdoch succeeds The Guardian might follow suit. "You'd have to be crazy to be fundamentalist about this."

Why the more measured tone? In a perfect world, Mr Rusbridger would like guardian.co.uk to remain free, but he realises there is little prospect of online newspapers paying for themselves through advertising. The most lauded (and free) online newspaper in the world, The Huffington Post, still loses money and employs a mere 60 journalists. Given that The Guardian is losing £30m a year, Mr Rusbridger would be silly to rule out the possibility of trying to make some money out of the internet, which is what Mr Murdoch hopes to do.

A couple of journalists worthy of elevation

The coalition Government is supposed to be creating more than 100 life peers, and I hope it will not be thought inappropriate for me to put forward the names of the distinguished columnists Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. Sir Max, at least, is believed to be keen. However, Messrs Cameron and Clegg should know that it would be most destructive to the relationship of these two old friends were one ennobled without the other.

Throughout their long careers there has been a delightful symmetry. Sir Simon beat Sir Max to an editorial chair, though Sir Max occupied both of his for considerably longer. Both trousered knighthoods from Tony Blair, whom they had generally supported, though here Sir Max was faster off the blocks than his old pal by a couple of years. Sir Max was President of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England for five years, whereas Sir Simon has been Chairman of the National Trust for two years.

Can I make a heartfelt plea that these two gentlemen be advanced to the peerage on the same day, preferably at the same hour, lest this beautiful pas de deux be cruelly disrupted?

s.glover@independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/stephen-glover/stephen-glover-entrapment-is-a-perfectly-valid-tool-1981154.html

kary

Posts : 354
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-03-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Duchess of York and entrapment by undercover reporter

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 24.05.10 9:59

@ufercoffy wrote:What on earth was this all about? Why did the News of the World do this?

And why can't an undercover reporter like....erm, Jo do the same to the McCanns if this kind of entrapment is ethical - after all, Gunnill thought nothing of entraping Tony Bennett did he?



Discuss.


Didn't the same newspaper carry out a similar sting on the Countess of Wessex ? I am no fan of any of them, but if entrapment is fair enough for some people, why not others?

____________________
The Fund. 13 pence in every £1 donated will go towards searching for Madeleine.[b]

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Duchess of York and entrapment by undercover reporter

Post by Cherry on 27.05.10 0:57

It seems they are willing to expose Fergie but not willing to expose those seemingly covering up what happened to Madeleine, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Cherry

Posts : 2150
Reputation : 33
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : Emirates Stadium

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum