Re: Sarah Duchess of York



On May 31, 11:38 pm, "wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx" <wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 6:39 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On May 31, 3:42 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 30, 3:21 pm, "Nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx" <nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 29, 1:48 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 29, 1:47 am, "Nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx" <nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 28, 1:55 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 28, 7:59 am, "Nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx" <nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 27, 11:21 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 27, 7:47 pm, Joseph McMillan <mcmillan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 27, 4:38 pm, "wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx" <wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think the essential point is that the influence Sarah Ferguson was
offering to sell access to someone in government who oculd confer a
financial benefit. Let's leave aside the fact that she was proposing
this to a reporter rather than the Sheik she thought she was lunching
with. If she was NOT actually able to deliver, she would then guilty
of the more serious crime of fraud. If she WAS able to deliver, I do
not think the preicse status of the person to whom she was selling
access (from whom the buyer anticipated a benefit worth several
hundred thousand pounds) is the main issue. Andrew is connected
connnection to the government in his quasi-ambassadorial capacity and
his influence as a member of the royal family, which is a matter of
fact, not semantics.

I'm not arguing that what she offered to do was right, excusable,
amusing, or anything of the sort.  It was on its face somewhere
between unsavory and despicable.  But the question is whether it was
illegal.  We would seem to have a private citizen (she isn't a member
of the royal family any more, is she?) trying to get money to
introduce someone to a person with whom she is no longer legally
related, and who may or may not fall within the legal definition of a
public official.  A quasi-ambassador is not an ambassador.  What
exactly do British statutes have to say on this subject?  Is it in
fact against the law for a non-official to take money to introduce
someone to another non-official to whom she is not related?

Joseph McMillan

Take a look at the Bribery Act.http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=3694937
in particular the wording of Sect. 1(4)
Seems highly likely that old Fergie is indeed liable to
prosecution....

Regards,
   The Chief
   The Chief

According to section 3 it does not apply to Fergie. She is no longer
in a position of trust in the UK.

Nick

??? I see nothing in sect. 3 about positions of trust, in UK or
otherwise. The statute is explicit that the receiver of the bribe
(Fergie in this case) does not have to be the one rendering the
favours - i.e.  it covers the case at hand.

Regards,
  The chief

3 (3-5):Condition A is that a person performing the function or
activity is expected to perform it in good faith.
Condition B is that a person performing the function or activity is
expected to perform it impartially.
Condition C is that a person performing the function or activity is in
a position of trust by virtue of performing it.

This act only applies if one or more of these conditions is true. Ex-
Wives are not supposed to do anything "in good faith" with their ex-
husbands, they are supposed to be partial, and they are no longer in a
position of trust re: their ex-husbands. That's kinda the point of
being ex.

Nick

Those conditions apply to Randy Andy, as he was the one "performing
the function or activity", not Fergie.

Regards,
   The Chief

So you agree Fergie doesn't go to jail?

Not at all. As I already pointed out, the legislation explicitly
allows for the case where the recipient of the bribe (Fergie) is a
separate person from the actually providing the favour (Randy Andy).

But, as also asked several times, what is the favour he is supposed to
perform?

From what I can gather, the film does not make it clear. Surely, if
the 'sheikh' had requested some favour or deal, that would have been
fully displayed for all to see. So why the silence from the producers
of the film? Why do we not see that part of it?

There can be only one answer.

There is no request for a favour or service to be performed.

One suspects that the request was merely to meet the Prince. Making
that part of the film or the discussions available would make it all
too obvious.

Much better to rely on the usual suggestive racist overtones from the
Murdoch press. Arab sheikh, 'loads-a-money' - nudge, nudge, wink, wink.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have supplied some excerpts from the transcript above that confute
your suggestion that the Sheik merely wanted to meet the prince.

On May 31, 11:38 pm, "wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx" <wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 6:39 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On May 31, 3:42 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 30, 3:21 pm, "Nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx" <nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 29, 1:48 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 29, 1:47 am, "Nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx" <nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 28, 1:55 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 28, 7:59 am, "Nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx" <nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 27, 11:21 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 27, 7:47 pm, Joseph McMillan <mcmillan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 27, 4:38 pm, "wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx" <wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think the essential point is that the influence Sarah Ferguson was
offering to sell access to someone in government who oculd confer a
financial benefit. Let's leave aside the fact that she was proposing
this to a reporter rather than the Sheik she thought she was lunching
with. If she was NOT actually able to deliver, she would then guilty
of the more serious crime of fraud. If she WAS able to deliver, I do
not think the preicse status of the person to whom she was selling
access (from whom the buyer anticipated a benefit worth several
hundred thousand pounds) is the main issue. Andrew is connected
connnection to the government in his quasi-ambassadorial capacity and
his influence as a member of the royal family, which is a matter of
fact, not semantics.

I'm not arguing that what she offered to do was right, excusable,
amusing, or anything of the sort. It was on its face somewhere
between unsavory and despicable. But the question is whether it was
illegal. We would seem to have a private citizen (she isn't a member
of the royal family any more, is she?) trying to get money to
introduce someone to a person with whom she is no longer legally
related, and who may or may not fall within the legal definition of a
public official. A quasi-ambassador is not an ambassador. What
exactly do British statutes have to say on this subject? Is it in
fact against the law for a non-official to take money to introduce
someone to another non-official to whom she is not related?

Joseph McMillan

Take a look at the Bribery Act.http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=3694937
in particular the wording of Sect. 1(4)
Seems highly likely that old Fergie is indeed liable to
prosecution....

Regards,
The Chief
The Chief

According to section 3 it does not apply to Fergie. She is no longer
in a position of trust in the UK.

Nick

??? I see nothing in sect. 3 about positions of trust, in UK or
otherwise. The statute is explicit that the receiver of the bribe
(Fergie in this case) does not have to be the one rendering the
favours - i.e. it covers the case at hand.

Regards,
The chief

3 (3-5):Condition A is that a person performing the function or
activity is expected to perform it in good faith.
Condition B is that a person performing the function or activity is
expected to perform it impartially.
Condition C is that a person performing the function or activity is in
a position of trust by virtue of performing it.

This act only applies if one or more of these conditions is true. Ex-
Wives are not supposed to do anything "in good faith" with their ex-
husbands, they are supposed to be partial, and they are no longer in a
position of trust re: their ex-husbands. That's kinda the point of
being ex.

Nick

Those conditions apply to Randy Andy, as he was the one "performing
the function or activity", not Fergie.

Regards,
The Chief

So you agree Fergie doesn't go to jail?

Not at all. As I already pointed out, the legislation explicitly
allows for the case where the recipient of the bribe (Fergie) is a
separate person from the actually providing the favour (Randy Andy).

But, as also asked several times, what is the favour he is supposed to
perform?

From what I can gather, the film does not make it clear. Surely, if
the 'sheikh' had requested some favour or deal, that would have been
fully displayed for all to see. So why the silence from the producers
of the film? Why do we not see that part of it?

There can be only one answer.

There is no request for a favour or service to be performed.

One suspects that the request was merely to meet the Prince. Making
that part of the film or the discussions available would make it all
too obvious.

Much better to rely on the usual suggestive racist overtones from the
Murdoch press. Arab sheikh, 'loads-a-money' - nudge, nudge, wink, wink.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have supplied some excerpts from the transcript above that confute
your suggestion that the Sheik merely wanted to meet the prince.

I based my comments on the film that I saw myself, as presented on the
TV. Not on any supposed partial transcripts supplied from where, by
whom, from what source, I know not.

What was presented on TV and what I did see was Sarah Fergusson saying
that Prince Andrew will not take any money, "he is whiter than white".
When prompted a second time, she says the same, even though obviously
now a little worse for drink. Again, the provocateur tries to suggest
something about him being a prince and not needing the money. A third
time, she says he will not have anything to do with anything
underhand.

By the way, if one actually reads the "News of the World" article from
which you quote and the organisers of the whole thing, themselves say
that she lied "Behind her ex's back, Fergie claimed to have discussed
it with him and lied: "Andrew said to me, 'Tell him £500,000.'

So you are trying to put a twist on this that the agent provocateurs
themselves do not!
.