Skip to content

Seems a bit of a reach

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?

18 thoughts on “Seems a bit of a reach”

  1. 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”

  2. 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?”

  3. The Meissen Bison

    Seriously, who thinks Meghan is going to allow Harry that sort of freedom?

    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.

  4. 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…

  5. 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 . . .



  6. Ice Cold Otto Kring

    I take it that he has no connection with David “Diddy” Hamilton.

    They weren’t in the same posse or anything were they ?

  7. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *