The Pickering Post
Wednesday, 14th November 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.

Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.



focus on the present mohamMADist problem, Nazis were beaten BT

Short Bill says he didn't rape a 16 yo who says he did. The media and Labor supporters believe him. A high paid prostitute claims she was paid £15,000 to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17. The media and the Lefties believe her. Go figure.

Al little bit twisted to boot . Passed it on to his strange son who preferred horse head over the beautiful Lady D. Quote from Phil - "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation".

I am just amazed at the way the Leftard Press is salivating over this story, the sheila behind it is a prostate and a slunt yet they run rabid with it, hang on the poor women allegedly raped by the great Leftard Bull Shitten gets no air play mmmmm the Musso's shot the wrong Journalists!

The Dear Queen was the last of the tolerant women . Diana started the modernisation of Royal standards.

These are FCS at least for now ALLEGATIONS by someone who may well have her own agenda. I am not a monarchist but he is an easy target.

he cannot complain G U remember the 1956 Olympics he was late for the ceremony lizzie waited and phil the greek was busy getting a shot away ??

Adultery runs in the Royal Family.....very common those royals.

I think the Royal family are relieved that it wasn't an affair with one of the young footman.

We'd all believe Fergy of course wouldn't we DJT?

Is Phillip Andy's father? What about Lord Porchester? Phil was off with cousin Alexandra so the story goes.

Very good Larry. Doubt the poor old duke can make quite such a nuisance of himself with the staff these days.

It's well known that Lt. Phillip Mountbatten R.N. was a bit of a swordsman. I believe even after he was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet he still kept his hand in (so to speak)

A30-YEAR-old woman is claiming that when she was 17 (and thus below the age of consent in Florida) she had sexual relations with Prince Andrew. What has this to do with the Australian Constitution? In brief, nothing at all. This is not only because Prince Andrew is fifth, and will soon be sixth, in line to the throne. Nor that he is likely to be further removed when Prince Harry establishes a family.
We have to put the claims in context. They are made in a lastditch civil case brought against American authorities about the handling of a criminal case against financier Jeffrey Epstein.
These claims have not been made under oath, nor tested under cross-examination. They are made under a legal system that allows a lawyer to take a significant slice, often a third to 45 per cent of the vast sums US courts seem inclined to award. Unlike Australia there’s no rule requiring losers to pay the winners’ costs, so there is no disincentive from making the most frivolous and reckless claims in the hope they will at least be settled.
Prince Andrew is not the only well known person included. So are Bill Clinton, some “former prime minister’’ and, crucially, prominent American lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
“My only feeling is,” Professor Dershowitz declared, “if she’s lied about me, which I know to be an absolute certainty she has, she should not be believed about anyone else.
“... I think it must be presumed all her allegations against Prince Andrew were false as well.”
Outraged by the accusation, Dershowitz, whose clients have included Patty Hearst, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, and OJ Simpson, has thrown down the gauntlet.
“You cannot allow these allegations to hang above you,” he insists, “... you have to fight back with every resource and ounce of energy available to you.”
Americans know that when Alan Dershowitz is unleashed, stand by for the onslaught.
Now, unless this claim is summarily dismissed it is likely to be caught up in a quagmire of legal argument and appeals.
In this event the allegations of under-age sex could linger for years. It will be difficult even for Dershowitz to have them resolved except in one place. That is the very important court of public opinion ? where Dershowitz is no stranger.
We may expect the release of information that will be very damaging to the credibility of the complainants. In fact, it was this very issue that led the prosecutors not to send Epstein to trial but to refer all the evidence to a preliminary grand jury hearing.
This led to a single charge of soliciting an under-age prostitute. Under a plea deal, Epstein served
an 18-month prison term.
In suing about this, the complainants’ lawyer is drawing a very long bow. Had this been a federal rather than state crime, a grand jury hearing would have been required under the constitution.
Even if the court were to find the authorities erred, it may make no ruling on the facts.
In the meantime, the complainants’ lawyer is no doubt very pleased that the media have treated these claims as highly newsworthy.
This reflects the intense newsworthiness of the royal family where even the Duchess of Cambridge’s dress or Prince George’s toys is given greater prominence than, say, the brutal elimination of minorities in the Middle East.
So will these claims make Australians hanker after some politicians’ republic?
It would be unwise, but it would be consistent with their past practice, for Australia’s republicans to hope at least in private that this will be the silver bullet that will revive their cause.
The 1999 referendum could not have been held at a better time for them. Not only was it just before the centenary of Federation, the dawn of a new century and a new millennium as well as the holding of the Olympic Games in Sydney, the royal family had passed through difficult years with three divorces and the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
And most politicians and the media were onside.
Worried by the weakness of their case, which centred on the diplomatic term “head of state” — so unknown it was not even in the Macquarie Dictionary — the republicans also mounted a snide campaign based on what they thought was the monarchy’s Achilles heel. They said a no vote was a vote for King Charles and Queen Camilla.
If that didn’t work in 1999, relying on mere claims in a lastditch lawyer-incentivised case about the fifth in line is hardly going to revive Australian republicanism. Nor will the end of the present reign. That will produce a worldwide retrospective on this long Elizabethan era, dwarfing interest in both the royal marriage and the royal birth. Then there will be growing fascination with the coronation, with its roots back to the kings of Israel, and about the new Prince of Wales and his family. The monarchy will go on doing what it has always done, successfully renewing itself.

Buckingham Palace has issued a strong denial that the Duke of York, Prince Andrew, has been involved in bizarre hill marching based sexual practices.

According to reports up to ten thousand men are alleged to have been involved in incidents involving the Duke.

One participant, who cannot be named for legal reasons said “Me and loads of other guys were offered money to dress up in early 19th century uniforms and then march to the top of a hill.”

“When we got there we were greeted by an extremely ‘excited’ Prince Andrew. He was very giggly now I think about it.”

“Then, just when we thought it was all over, he seemed keen to make us march all the way back down again.”

Another man, who also claims to have been involved claimed “He was quite firm about it, when we were up we were up and when we were down we were down.”

Denying the claims a Buckingham Palace spokesman told us, “All allegations in this matter are false, and records will clearly show these men were neither up nor down.”