The Duke of Sussex has been named in a $30 million US lawsuit alleging that Sean “Diddy” Combs, the rapper, used his name to give his sex trafficking parties legitimacy.
Rodney Jones, a record producer, has accused Combs, 54, of a litany of sexual assault allegations. His 73-page lawsuit against the rapper and several of his associates and record labels was filed in New York last month.
The lawsuit claims that Combs was known for throwing sex trafficking parties. It alleges that those affiliated with such parties, or those who sponsored them, were given access to celebrities such as “international dignitaries like British royal Prince Harry”.
Seriously, who thinks Meghan is going to allow Harry that sort of freedom?
Mind you, aren’t rappers known for their diversity hires?
What is a “sex trafficking party”? A party in which you celebrate sex trafficking? I can understand what pretty many combinations of two out of the three words mean but all three together in that order just doesn’t make any sense…. “sex party”, “sex trafficking”, “party sex”
Wrong member of the Royal Family?
Emil
It does seem rather a dull party with all these sex traffickers talking shop.
Ottokring
Imagine it as more of a business conference with workshops…
“Best practice for safe packaging”
“Ensuring Diversity in your chosen market”
“How DO you stop them crying?”
@Geoffers: and just imagine the PowerPoint presentations…!
Diddy though?
I’m thinking he Didn’t.
As is often the way with the glitterati La Markle’s calculations are transactional. If her prince will receive more glitter than he confers from a given event then it gets the green light. That’s not freedom.
Perhaps Harry got to hand out the awards at Sex Trafficker of the Year.
Ottok- and to present HRH Meghan the reward for best international Sussex traffiking.
Rumour on the interwebs is that Diddy liked to ‘traffic’ promising young (male) rappers from the projects to his bedroom..
I guess that makes it easier to rap about prison, even if you’ve never been incarcerated…
The new meaning of ‘trafficking’, to signify ‘interactions freely entered into at the time, but now a) regretted or b) ripe to be exploited for personal benefit’, is quite interesting. I can’t seem to find any indication that anyone was forced to do anything they didn’t choose to do, or held against their will, or that anything of value was exchanged by anyone except the parties involved – a transaction as old as time, and well-understood by all involved. So what and where is the ‘trafficking’? I is bemused . . .
llater,
llamas
I take it that he has no connection with David “Diddy” Hamilton.
They weren’t in the same posse or anything were they ?
@Llamas
The “trafficking” likely relates to the cab they got across town.
Does the Mann Act extend to chaps who are “trafficked” across state lines for bumming ?
@Ottokring – no, the Mann Act spoke only to females.
llater,
llamas
One wonders how quickly the litigious princeling will spring into action to defend his spotless reputation.
Or does he only fish in the safer waters of the virulently anti-tabloid British legal system.
Maybe he was keeping Meghan company