British royal with gay sex claims
- added April 15, 2008
- 0 responses
-
-
-
-
- jcwelker
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Sex and Love (4625)
- Current (2461)
- Religion (1855)
- Gay (1832)
- Media (1590)
- Sex (1459)
- Human Rights (1100)
- LGBT (331)
- Homosexuality (255)
- Homophobia (162)
- Scandal (147)
- Rights (90)
- Sex Scandal (60)
- british family (1)
Two men tried to blackmail a member of the royal family with claims he had performed a gay sex act, a London court heard Tuesday.
Ian Strachan and Sean McGuigan demanded 50,000 pounds in return for not publicising mobile phone footage including allegations about the unidentified royal, a prosecutor said.
The recordings also contained "scandalous and disparaging remarks" about other royals, as well as allegations of "impropriety" about the victim's business affairs, the Central Criminal Courtwas told.
The royal in question cannot be identified, and was referred to in court only as witness A.
Both defendants have denied the charge that they made "an unwarranted demand with menaces."
In early 2007 property developer Strachan, 30, and McGuigan, 40, made a series of audio and video recordings of a man who had been employed for some years by the royal, said prosecutor Mark Ellison.
Much of the eight hours of audio and video files was recorded when the man was drunk or "under the influence of other substances."
"He was also shown recounting stories and alleged experiences, making allegations of impropriety as to how his employer conducted aspects of his business," Ellison said.
"And 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," he added.
The recordings contained material which would have potential to "cause embarrassment and hurt to his employer" and a number of other members of the extended royal family, he said.
The men approached newspapers and a leading publicist seeking a "substantial sum" for the material, but failed and so turned their efforts to trying to blackmail the royal, said the prosecutor.
The pair were caught after they went to a meeting at a London hotel on September 11. They thought they were going to see a representative of the alleged royal victim but it was really an undercover officer, the court heard.
Ian Strachan and Sean McGuigan demanded 50,000 pounds in return for not publicising mobile phone footage including allegations about the unidentified royal, a prosecutor said.
The recordings also contained "scandalous and disparaging remarks" about other royals, as well as allegations of "impropriety" about the victim's business affairs, the Central Criminal Courtwas told.
The royal in question cannot be identified, and was referred to in court only as witness A.
Both defendants have denied the charge that they made "an unwarranted demand with menaces."
In early 2007 property developer Strachan, 30, and McGuigan, 40, made a series of audio and video recordings of a man who had been employed for some years by the royal, said prosecutor Mark Ellison.
Much of the eight hours of audio and video files was recorded when the man was drunk or "under the influence of other substances."
"He was also shown recounting stories and alleged experiences, making allegations of impropriety as to how his employer conducted aspects of his business," Ellison said.
"And 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," he added.
The recordings contained material which would have potential to "cause embarrassment and hurt to his employer" and a number of other members of the extended royal family, he said.
The men approached newspapers and a leading publicist seeking a "substantial sum" for the material, but failed and so turned their efforts to trying to blackmail the royal, said the prosecutor.
The pair were caught after they went to a meeting at a London hotel on September 11. They thought they were going to see a representative of the alleged royal victim but it was really an undercover officer, the court heard.
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
