Socialite pair “plotted to blackmail” Royal

Introduction – April 15, 2008


The proceedings reported below are a sordid affair and normally we would ignore them but for the fact that they echo earlier allegations made by another Royal servant.

Those allegation were made by Princess Diana’s former servant George Smith, who claimed that homosexuality was rife in the royal household.

This shouldn’t surprise us however, it’s almost par for the course in the dying days of empire. The same held true in the final days of imperial China when Beijing’s Forbidden City was infested with homosexuals.

Although the royal in the report below remains unnamed, earlier allegations made by the former royal valet specifically named a senior royal aide and Prince Charles whom, Smith claimed, he had found in bed together.

Smith even went so far as to claim that he had been subject to a homosexual rape by the royal aide in question.

Smith stood by his claim, despite his being largely ignored or ridiculed by the British media.

What is interesting here however is that Prince Charles private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, subsequently confirmed that the Prince was so troubled by the allegations that he wished Mr Smith could somehow be “made to go away”.

Well he got his wish.

Virtually unreported by the media, George Smith died, says wikipedia, of an “unknown illness” on August 24, 2005. So while they largely dismissed his credibility while he was still alive, the mainstream media also completely ignored his untimely death.

Like Princess Diana’s “accident”, George Smith’s death from an “unknown illness” stinks.

Socialite pair “plotted to blackmail” Royal over claims he performed a gay sex act on aide
Daily Mail – April 15, 2008

A married member of the royal family was a victim of a gay sex blackmail plot, the Old Bailey heard today.

Other members of the family were also named in “scandalous and disparaging” allegations.

Two men tried to gain £50,000 “with menaces” from the royal to prevent these allegations appearing in the media, the jury was told.

They were arrested after a meeting at the Hilton hotel in Park Lane with the royal’s representative who turned out to be an undercover police officer.

Neither the victim, described as “a member of the extended royal family” and a married family man, nor the man on whose claims the alleged blackmail plot was based can be identified because of court orders made by Mr Justice Cooke.

Ian Strachan, 31, of Chelsea, and Sean McGuigan, 41, of Battersea, have pleaded not guilty to making unwarranted demands with menaces between July and September last year.

Mark Ellison QC, prosecuting, said the defendants made eight hours of video and audio computer files of allegations by a man known as Witness D.

Both Strachan and McGuigan knew D, who was employed by the royal known as Witness A, but strongly disliked him. D was often drunk and was filmed apparently taking drugs using a Harrods card, the court heard.

On the files D “gave his forthright opinions on a range of well-known people and on a wide range of other members of the royal family which included a number of scandalous and disparaging remarks”, Mr Ellison said.

“There were three audio files of the man apparently asserting that the member of the royal family who employed him had performed an act of oral sex on him.”

If this material was ever published there was “the obvious potential to cause embarrassment and hurt to A and a number of members of the extended royal family”.

Strachan made the recordings using McGuigan’s mobile phone, the court heard. He approached several newspapers and publicist Max Clifford.

At the meeting, McGuigan was recorded saying there was an offer of “250″ for the tapes, Mr Ellison said.

He said what he was doing was “about witness D” who was “not a very nice person”.

“He spikes people’s drinks when they’re asleep or when they’re unconscious he fiddles about with them and things life that… he’s got to be stopped.”

Strachan said the tapes included D snorting cocaine.

D was also recorded saying he had letters the royal gave him.

He said the tapes were four hours of video and four of audio.

Mr Ellison said Strachan claimed money was not his primary objective as he wanted to expose D, but he did ask one newspaper for “a substantial sum”.

The newspapers decided there would be legal problems and turned Strachan down, said Mr Ellison. The defendants turned their attention to A.

In July last year A’s personal assistant, known as Witness B, received a call from a man claiming to be Kent Logan and demanding to speak to A, said Mr Ellison.

The man added: “If he knows what’s good for him he will ring me back” and left a phone number which was registered to Strachan’s mother.

Three weeks later McGuigan rang B asking to speak to A. He mentioned “something relating to an act of oral sex”, and said D was “slagging off” A’s wife and other royals and was going to go to the newspapers.

B rang Witness C, a close associate of A and a lawyer, who contacted McGuigan, Mr Ellison said.

McGuigan told C he did not want money but “wanted A to know how nefarious his employee D was”. However he added: “But if A wanted to ‘take care of them’ it would be nice,” said Mr Ellison.

Strachan told C they had been offered up to £100,000 for the tapes and demanded £50,000 from Mr A. In taped phone conversations, C told Strachan: “A would rather avoid a big scandal, but for him £50,000 is a lot of money. He doesn’t want to pay that big amount under duress and find there are many copies circulating around.”

Strachan replies: “Definitely not. I’m a man of my word.”

In September the undercover officer, known as Paul, met Strachan and McGuigan in a bugged meeting at the Hilton.

McGuigan told him they had the potential to earn £250,000 from the media.
Mr Ellison said that after hearing some material Paul asked if he had heard everything that affected A.

Strachan replied that D “kinds of flips in” and says A performed oral sex on him “but he doesn’t go into much detail”.

The case continues
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=559814&in_page_id=1770