- In a recent interview with BBC, Prince Andrew said he did not have sex with a 17-year-old who was allegedly trafficked to him by Epstein in 2001.
- He tried to say that the alleged victim’s description of him as sweaty couldn’t have been right because he had a medical condition that prevented him from sweating.
- He also suggested, among other things, that the photograph of them together was suspicious because he never hugs or displays affection in public.
- Since then, more photos of him embracing women have surfaced, along with a ton of ridicule and criticism over what many are calling a “car crash” interview.
Prince Andrew’s Relationship with Epstein
Prince Andrew again tried to clear his name against claims that he had sex with an underage girl trafficked to him by Jeffrey Epstein, however, he seems to have made things worse for himself.
In a BBC interview which aired Saturday, the Duke of York was confronted with detailed accusations from Virginia Roberts-Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers. Giuffre has claimed that she was a “sex slave” of Epstein’s that was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth and one of Epstein’s highest-profile friends.
The prince had been known to stay at some of Epstein’s homes, fly on his private jet, and attend parties with him. Even after Epstein was hit with his sex offense conviction, the two remained in contact. Then in August, Epstein reportedly killed himself while in jail awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges involving dozens of young victims.
Giuffre has said multiple times that she was trafficked to the prince in 2001 when she was 17-years-old. She swore on her story in a court deposition and has discussed it in public interviews, saying they had sex on three different occasions.
Both Prince Andrew and Buckingham Palace have denied her claims, calling them “false” and “without foundation.” However, the two are known to have met at some point based on a now-infamous photograph that shows them together.
Prince Andrew Denies Claims
In Giuffre’s account of their encounter, she mentioned that the Duke of York was sweating profusely while they danced at Tramp nightclub in London. She says Prince Andrew got her alcohol and eventually took her back to Ghislaine Maxwell’s home. Maxwell, who is also pictured in the photo, is one of the women accused of helping round up underage girls for Epstein and his friends.
In the interview with BBC journalist Emily Maitlis, Prince Andrew said there are issues with those claims.
First Andrew insisted he had “no recollection” of ever meeting Giuffre. “I’m convinced that I was never in Tramps with her. There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that I don’t know where the bar is in Tramps. I don’t drink, I don’t think I’ve ever bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there,” he said.
He added that it “couldn’t have happened because the date that’s being suggested I was at home with the children.”
When asked how he remembers that so clearly, he said he remembered going to a Pizza Express in Woking with his daughter earlier in the day, which was “a very unusual thing for me to do.”
Then he addressed Giuffre’s comments about his sweating. “There’s a slight problem with the sweating because I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat, or I didn’t sweat at the time,” he said.
“Yes, I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenalin in the Falkland’s War when I was shot at and I simply… It was almost impossible for me to sweat,” he added.
The prince went on to say that because of certain steps he has taken in the years since, he can now sweat again.
Prince Andrew stopped short of saying that 2001 photo was fake, as his friends have suggested. Instead, he said that he never remembers it being taken and said that though it is clearly an image of him, he is not convinced that it is his hand around Giuffre’s waist.
As a member of the royal family, he said: “Public displays of affection are not something that I do…I don’t believe that photograph was taken in the way that it’s been suggested.”
He also said he is not sure the picture of him was taken in London because he usually wears a suit and tie when traveling there.
The prince went on to say that he did not regret his friendship with Epstein, adding that their relationship has some “seriously beneficial outcomes.”
“The people I met and the opportunities I was given to learn, either by him or because of him, were actually very useful,” Andrew said.
“Do I regret the fact that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes.”
“Unbecoming?” Maitlis replied, adding, “He was a sex offender.”
The duke quickly backtracked, saying: “Yeah, I’m sorry, I’m being polite. I mean, in the sense that he was a sex offender.”
Flood of Backlash Against Prince Andrew
His comments in the interview were received with a slew of backlash and by the following day, more photos emerged showing him publically embracing women, contradicting his previous claims. According to the NY Post, in one 2007 photo, American socialite Chris Von Aspen licks Andrew’s face. In another 2008 picture, he appears to have his hand on the butt of Canadian socialite Pascale Bourbeau as she wraps her arm around his neck. The Daily Mail also released a video of him with women at a party on the French Riviera in 2008.
A newspaper report from 2000 also began circulating which twice referred to the prince sweating profusely.
The prince has also been met with ridicule from British media and internet users.
“I expected a train wreck,” tweeted Charlie Proctor, editor of the Royal Central website. “That was a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion level bad.”
Andrew even faced calls for U.S. law enforcement to question him. “I think he’s made things much worse for himself. And it’s much more likely the authorities will want to speak to him now. And they should,” Lisa Bloom, who represents two of Epstein’s alleged victims, told the BBC on Monday.
Also on Monday, it became public news that the Duke of York’s former PR adviser, who only took up his position in September, had resigned two weeks ago after warning against doing the TV interview.
Things further escalated for Andrew when a former senior British government official claimed that the prince used the N-word during a meeting back in 2012.
Rohan Silva, who was David Cameron’s key aide on the tech economy, claimed that the prince used the N-word in his presence during a 2012 discussion about trade policy.
Silva, who is of Sri Lankan descent, told the Evening Standard that when he asked Prince Andrew whether the government department responsible for trade “could be doing a better job,” the Duke of York responded: “Well, If you’ll pardon the expression, that really is the n***** in the woodpile.”
See what others are saying:( (FOX News) (Vice) (The New York Times)
Hamas and Israel Exchange Deadly Strikes Over Conflicts at Al-Aqsa Mosque and Sheikh Jarrah
- Tensions between Israel and Palestine have risen dramatically over the last month since Israel restricted access to al-Aqsa mosque, along with other religious and traditional sites during Ramadan, Islam’s holiest month.
- On top of this, there are ongoing clashes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, where an Israeli court has ordered Palestinian families out of their homes despite a 1956 agreement that stated they could keep their homes after three years.
- The two situations have jointly fueled weeks of massive protests in Jerusalem, leading to hundreds of injuries.
- Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, issued an ultimatum to Israel to stop its actions. When the deadline passed Monday night, it launched over 400 rockets into Israel, which retaliated with its own airstrikes.
Actions at Al-Aqsa Mosque and Sheikh Jarrah Fuel Anger
Dozens were killed across Israel and the Gaza Strip between Monday and Tuesday after both sides conducted airstrikes over rising tensions between Israel and Palestinians in Jerusalem.
At play are two unique situations that have led to Palestinians becoming particularly frustrated at what they feel is unjust treatment by Israel. The first is what Palestinians describe as Israeli restrictions on religious and cultural practices during Ramadan. The other is the looming evictions of Palestinians in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Eastern Jerusalem.
The religious clashes began about a month ago at the start of Ramadan when Israeli security forces put up barriers to stop people from hanging out at the Damascus Gate, a popular spot during the holiest month in Islam.
The situation was made worse when Israel imposed a 10,000 person limit on prayers at the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam’s holiest sites. The 10,000 person limit meant tens of thousands of Palestinians were turned away or forcibly removed in a series of raids into the mosque and compound, the most recent of which caused a fire in a tree in the area.
Israel tried to de-escalate the ongoing protests by removing the barriers at the Damascus Gate to little avail.
Sheikh Jarrah: Microcosm for Entire Conflict
On top of the situation at the al-Aqsa compound, there have also been also large demonstrations over evictions in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. The area was developed in the ’50s by Jordan when it controlled that part of Jerusalem as part of an agreement with Israel. Part of that agreement was that the families living there would be allowed to keep the homes after three years. Jordan eventually lost control of Sheikh Jarrah and seven decades later an Israeli court has ordered Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah to leave their homes.
The court agreed with the accusation that the homes were illegally built on Jewish-owned land and should be returned to Jewish residents. In turn, Israeli settlers moved into the area and entered homes with families still living inside — a move that has been described as little more than blatant theft.
The evictions at Sheikh Jarrah have led to weeks of massive protests and this past weekend was no different with hundreds of injuries across both sides.
The entire situation was supposed to be settled, at least legally, during a Supreme Court hearing on Monday, but that was postponed until an unknown date, leaving many to feel like the situation won’t be resolved and fueling further protests.
Hamas Issues Ultimatum
In response to all of this, Hamas and its territory of the Gaza Strip decided to issue an ultimatum for Israel to leave the al-Aqsa Mosque complex and the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood or it would launch rockets. When that failed to happen at 6 p.m. on Monday, Hamas launched a massive attack of over 400 rockets into Israel. Many fell short or were stopped by Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.
However, some did find their targets and injured at least 10 Israelis and killing two. Israel responded by conducting airstrikes against Gaza, reportedly killing 26. Both sides have continued to bombard the other through the last 36 hours with promises to escalate the situation further.
Over the next few days, it’s likely that the death tolls will rise and the bloodshed will be used as its own excuse to continue the violent cycle that the region has been locked in since the middle of the 20th century.
See what others are saying: (CBS News) (Jersualem Post) (The New York Times)
German Catholic Priests Defy Vatican by Blessing Same-Sex Unions
- Priests throughout Germany openly defied the Roman Catholic Church and blessed same-sex marriages over the weekend as part of an organized effort that has extended into this week.
- In the past, the vast majority of willing priests would refuse to bless such marriages due to the ambiguity of the Church’s position, which was clarified in March 2021 as against blessing same-sex unions.
- The effort by German priests has received some support in progressive nations but has been widely opposed by the greater Church.
- The Vatican is unlikely to back down from its position; however, the challenge is large enough to potentially set off a debate on the issue within the Church.
Pope’s Stance on Blessing Same-Sex Unions
Catholic priests throughout Germany openly challenged a group of new rules by the Vatican this weekend and set the stage for a large debate over LGTBQ+ issues within the church.
At the center of the debate is a clear and complete ban on blessings of same-sex marriages by the Holy See from March of this year. Pope Francis’ official stance, and thus the Church’s official stance, is that priests cannot bless gay marriages because they are sinful, and the Church cannot “bless sin.”
Blessings are different from engaging in marriage ceremonies themselves and are used to bring marriages carried out by secular officials “into” the church.
The Pope’s stance received a lot of push back both within and outside of the church. Activists around the world felt it was overly restrictive and undermined Pope Francis’ other statements about loving LGBTQ+ members of the church. At the same time, hundreds of clergymen around the world, and especially in Germany, signed open letters with plans to defy the pontiff and bless same-sex unions anyways.
Such blessings weren’t completely unknown in the church because even without the Holy See’s official stance in March, it was assumed by clergymen that such blessings were forbidden; however, some carried them out anyways in secret.
Open Defiance of the Church
That secrecy largely came to an end this weekend in Germany. Sunday morning saw one of the first seemingly organized efforts in that defiance, with priests throughout Germany openly blessing same-sex marriages. The organized effort also includes another event planned for Monday, May 10, including live-streamed services.
Despite the progressive push by parts of the German church, most Catholic dioceses in the country back the Church’s official stance, and that support is even more widespread worldwide.
Beyond doctrinal differences, many German parishes are pushing for more progressive stances to cope with the fact that people are leaving the church in droves, partly because of its social stances. In some respects, those decisions have proven popular.
As it stands, it’s unclear what will happen next to the priests and bishops who backed blessing same-sex unions, and whether or not other dioceses in progressive countries will take a similar stance and back them. It’s also unlikely that the church will change its stance on same-sex marriages.
In the meantime, hundreds of gay Catholic couples throughout Germany and neighboring countries plan to get their marriages blessed at a Catholic Church for the first time.
See what others are saying: (Washington Post) (BBC) (National Catholic Reporter)
Mukbangs and Ordering Too Much Food Banned in China
- China recently passed a law that bans ordering too much food and sharing content online that portrays overeating.
- Though food scarcity is not an issue in the country, the law is meant to combat food waste, with authorities pointing out that China tosses 35 million tons of food annually.
- The law doesn’t penalize consumers at restaurants. Instead, it fines restaurants $1550 for allowing diners to order “more than they need.”
- TV stations, media companies, or people who post overeating content, such as Mukbangs, can face a $16,000 fine.
The End of Mukbangs
Some of the most popular content across Chinese social media has effectively been banned under an anti-food waste law that authorities passed late last week.
The law bans diners from ordering more than they need, which could hurt an entire class of eating videos, including ones where people enter all-you-can-eat restaurants to consume thousands of dollars worth of food. While it could be argued that if the creators eat all that food, they’ve satisfied the “more than they need” clause, the law also bans binge eating and posting such content online, meaning no more mukbangs for Chinese fans.
Censors have already begun removing overeating content, and much of it went missing overnight from Douyin, TikTok’s Chinese sister app.
The law also affects far more than a fringe group of people making food content. It’s so vague and open to interpretation that it could disrupt everyday restaurant-goers.
President Xi Jinping called food waste a “distressing” problem that threatens China’s food security, despite the fact that China is not facing any imminent food shortages.
Nearly 35 million tons of food go to waste every year in China, though that’s a relatively small amount for its population size. The U.S., for comparison, manages to throw away 66 million tons of food yearly.
Still, the legislation does not come as a complete surprise since Xi launched a food-saving campaign back in August claiming that COVID-19 was threatening the food supply chain.
Across China, restaurants have already begun to comply with the new rules. Some have set up scales at their entrance to give recommended food portion sizes to customers based on their weight. Meanwhile, others have promised to offer smaller-sized plates as an option.
One standard that many are seeking to enact is the “N-1” rule, which states that the number of dishes should be one less than the number of guests. The rule could be an attempt to curb a cultural practice that sees hosts ordering far more food than could be eaten in an effort to show off wealth.
Under the law, much of the blame towards a consumer wasting food is placed on restaurants, as there’s no clear cut fine for diners violating the law. Any establishment found allowing customers or misleading customers into ordering excessive amounts of food facing a $1550 fine. Showing content related to binge-eating could result in TV stations, online media companies, or even content creators facing a $16,000 fine.
Tuesday seems to have been the first time regulators went after a particular business, warning a Nanjing bakery to stop throwing away pastries that the business didn’t believe would sell because of visual defects. It has promised to donate them instead.