The identification in the media of the Soham arrestees, assumed as truth without any official announcement being made, is a good example of such bought information.
In the case of Soham was it not the police (officially or unofficially) who were identified as being the source? And there are plenty of other sources apart from newly released prisoners and prison officers.
I can't see how it could have been anyone else.
Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't leaked already.
It's Prince Charles and the story is all over the web
Michael Read
Having Googled "royal blackmail charles" I couldn't find a single page that said it is Charles (true I only checked the first twenty hits). Where did you get your information?
Why are the blackmailers in custody? I mean, its not like they tried to stab a police officer or anything is it.
Oops, I forgot. Actually stabbing a cop (or trying to) doesn't carry any weight these days, whereas trying to get some cash from an (alleged) smackhead is a really serious offence if the (alleged) smackhead is famous.
Justice? There is no justice in the British Isles anymore.
It can't be much of a secret if they only wanted £50,000. They must be candidates for dumbest criminals of the year. They could have gained much more by selling the story.
This link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/
uk...icle3106892.ece
gives more detail of the alleged incidents. Maybe a Royal having a Joe Blob, but cocaine?
Jobrag
Google "Prince Charles sex scandal" and look for newspapers outside the UK.
This one in USA Today wasn't the one I originally read which was the Toronto Star but the stories are close:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/200...e-
charles_x.htm
Just as a matter of interest it did occur to me that Google's algorithms are being edited to stop UK users seeing this material.
Paranoia is total reality.
Micheal - your link takes us to a story from 2003.
That one is old news, a scandal a few years old.
I do wonder if said royal will be charged with supplying a class A drug if the blackmailers have the evidence as suggested? I doubt it.
Best to lose interest now, if you had any in the first place that is.
A far better story was the alleged one about Jeremy Kyle and the 16 year old girl. I'm sure the irony is lost on him. LOL.
Bruce
Apologies
Bystander - Explain, please. Why is it quite proper that the victim's identity is kept secret? I thought it was only in Sexual assault and Rape cases.
Let me end all this speculation by revealing the truth. Prince Philip after overdosing on coke (Coca Cola, that is) became rather too friendly with some bagpipes.
perhaps it was Prince philip - high on cocaine and recieving a Blow job whilst driving a white Fiat uno...
A week? It was out earlier today. It's on the Huffington Post, Gawker, Fleshbot, and in the Wikipedia entry for the individual in question.
If the story is true, I hope, but don't expect, that the individual shown to be taking drugs in the video would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and given a truly exemplary punishment. The underclass in this country live through horrors every day; I have considerable sympathy for those of them that take drugs to palliate the harshness of that reality. For someone who has been provided with every advantage that could conceivably be asked for to indulge in this sort of behaviour is utterly repellent. And for somebody at this level of society to subsidise the criminals whose activities blight the estates and lives of the poor... Of course, it may be difficult to find many poor people on the way from Albermarle Street to King Street, but the cleaners at Christie's, who are paid well under the London Living Wage (http://www.livingwage.org.uk/), may be able to help.
Without wishing to spoil anybody's royal-bashing fun, dare I point out that the story, supposedly conected with our furniture designing royal, seems to involve
either a/ mere talk of sex wiith an aide
which of us hasn't talked about sex with someone else?
or b/ an actual sexual act with an aide
but office relationships are common - why should they not be so with a royal?
and the aide, not the royal, snorting cocaine (or some white powder) from an envelope which bears the royal's name.
Call me daft, but if an employee of Shell or BT uses a work envelope for nefarious purposes, it's not exactly the firm that's at fault, is it?
I can't really see what the "story" is here. Can anyone enlighten me?
By the way, did you know that using an inanimate object for sexual stimulation can get you on the Sex Offenders Register?. Ladies, lock up your Rampant Rabbits now, especially if you're in a hotel, and the maid may use a master key.
(Ok, this was more than a little strange, but it was taking place in his locked hostel room).
PMSL. Strange being the operative word there. I wonder if Class A's / alcohol were also in use there. i suspect so. Although I did have a patient once that would quite willingly talk about making a cushion into the shape of a vagina and having sex with that. It did however cause a lot of chaffing.
BTW, back to the original discussion. It's nice to see him taking after his mum.
I doubt this will be in the public interest long. Does anyone else remember when Freddie Windsor admitted to doing coke, and I believe he was involved in the running of a gay nightclub. It didn't harm his reputation.
Anyone going to answer my question?
The 'victim' laid a complaint with the Police. Why should the accuser enjoy anonimity in that circumstance? There may be someone out there who could help the accused if they knew any relevant matter pertaining to the complainant.
Rod,
If blackmail victims were not allowed anonymity it would just make the blackmailer's job a lot easier. If the mattter goes to trial the defendant can call any witness he likes.
Why would anybody be surprised ?
You are young, idle, rich. Of course there is plenty of drugs, booze and hence, sex. It was only a week or so ago that we were treated to the 2 princes getting "off their face" in Paris.
You should get out more.
What is repellent is the hypocrisy from those people when it comes to drugs and alcohol, and just shows the prohibition for what it is.
A week??? I've known the identity of Lord .... (won't get us both in trouble there) for a few days now!
@ James Nicola - the difference is it *matters* when chavs get hooked on coke and smack, because they tend to mug your granny to pay for it. There is no way that His Royal Cokeheadness's habit will cause harm to anyone other than himself, so locking him up would be utterly pointless [so is wasting our money on locking up junkie chavs, instead of just giving them it for free at a negligible cost to the taxpayer, but that's a separate point].
@ Anonymous 1:15pm - what the hell are you talking about? Blackmail always has been and always will be considered a serious crime, worthy of serious porridge. And so has stabbing a copper. I'd happily stake my life on this state of affairs continuing...
And so blackmail should be. If you aren't going to give information about crimes to the police in the interests of profit (in this case the use of class A drugs), where will you draw the line? Murder? Paedophilia?
They should be punished and severely so.
Since I assume the prisoners are not going to be put into solitary, you can guess the conversation....
"What you in here for then?"
"Well, I (allegedly) blackmailed a member of the Royal Family"
"Oh yeah, who?"
"Due to reporting restrictions I am honour bound not to mention his/her name".
"Go on, I've got some good grass to pass the time with if you tell me"
"Oh alright then..."
John B - Do you really think that the sycamore obsessed joiner in question is buying his supplies from ethical sources? Are there Fair Trade kitemarked drug dealers? The man is paying criminals to be criminal; to pay each other, to fight, injure and kill on his behalf, and you think his hands are clean? Yes, this is one of the several reasons for backing legalisation of drugs, but until that day comes, anyone who takes drugs is committing a crime and causing other crimes to be committed. Here and abroad. And, yes, I find it more excusable for the poor to commit this crime. They're the ones who suffer the huge majority of the consequences. The chances of the Queen's nephew being caught in the crossfire of two drug gangs fighting is pretty low; the chances of two drug gangs fighting over who gets his and other bourgeois users trade is pretty high.
Rod - I'd largely agree with you. The law is the law, but I don't think it's sensible here, and I think the Judge was ill advised to grant it. I see little reason for anonymity in this case (aside from the idiocy in practical terms of expecting it). There's an argument for immunity from prosecution to be granted; I don't like it but I grant that the importance of jailing a blackmailer is higher than jailing a drug user or casual dealer. However, if anonymity was granted, then it should have been granted to the accused as well. Nothing has yet been proved against either of them, and yet their lives have been effectively destroyed. Generally, I think the default in any case should be that if anonymity is granted it should be granted to both sides.
Pascal - One thing to grant the guy - he's not actually idle, at least by the standards of his peers. Nor is he young. I agree entirely about the hypocrisy, though.
Generally, when did the idea that a higher standard of behaviour should be expected from the privileged as a matter of course, and a heavier punishment inflicted if they fail even to live up to the standards that everyone is supposed to follow, become so unpopular? Lord knows Britain's never exactly implemented it, but time was the idea would at least have been paid some degree of lip service.
James Nicola - It's not so much that I'm against the anonimity (if it has been granted by a Court), it's just that I'm confused as to who is and is not granted such anonimity and for what reasons.
Is there a list of complainants that may be granted anonimity? Is it automatic or must it be applied for?
It's already out. A British author spilled the beans on Fox News in the United States and two Italian newspapers, La Repubblica and Corriera della Serra, have published the rumoured name. As with Edward Vlll, the only folks in the dark are the British
To be honest Rodney, I don't think ANYONE with two adjacent brain cells in the UK is in the dark...which is why in today's day and internet age, such gagging orders are frankly a complete waste of time.
Of course, I appreciate I have made a very large assumption about the number of brain cells in the average UK brain!!! 
Basically, once you rise to national prominence, you're stuffed as far as preserving anonymity is concerned. Expecting a member of the Royal Family to remain anonimous was farcical. A gagging order is probably only effective in local cases, and even then I doubt it.
I must the last person in this country not to know who we are talking about. Some clue about biscuits on the tellie but it didn't mean a thing to me. I really must be an old fogey!
Furniture making nephew of an august personage Jaycee!! (See hidden clues above!!)
Got it (finally!). And I also found it on the Huffington Post, as suggested by another contributor.
Commenting by HaloScan
