Youngest son of disgraced billionaire Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed reveals he ran away to sea to escape his father and claims we treat the Earth 'like he treated women'
The youngest son of Mohamed Al Fayed has revealed he ran away to sea to avoid his father's grip - despite being poised to take over Harrods.
Omar Al Fayed, 37, said he fled to a research ship at the age of just 22 - leaving his billionaire father convinced he had been kidnapped.
He joined the crew of the Heraclitus, a boat that was built in the 1970s by Californian environmentalists, and had carried out research on oceans across the world.
Omar told The Sunday Times: 'I told him exactly where I was going. I just don't think he believed me. And I was completely out of touch in the middle of the ocean.'
'I stuck it out a Harrods for as long as I could. I literally jumped ship. It was not just a cultural upbringing, generational thing.
'It genuinely was a personal difference in our approach to reality.'
Police now believe Al Fayed, who died last year aged 94, may have raped and abused more than 111 women over nearly four decades.
This would make the billionaire Harrods tycoon one of Britain's most notorious sex offenders.
Five brave survivors alleged in a BBC documentary that they had to barricade doors with chairs to get away from former Harrods boss Al Fayed.
Former employees said he would fly them to Paris under the guise of a work trip, take away their passports and put them in hotel rooms without locks.
Chilling claims say he monitored them with CCTV in their own homes, phone tapping and he threatened their families if they ever dared to speak out about the abuse.
BBC journalists looking into his predatory history gathered the stories of more than 20 women who said they had been abused by him, and 'up to 200' more have come forward since.
Omar, a lifelong environmentalist, has now said he believes business and industry treats the planet like his father treated women.
He also commended the bravery of the women who came forward accusing Al Fayed of sexual assault.
'I am horrified and deeply concerned by the allegations recently brought to light against my late father,' he said when the allegations emerged in September.
'The extent and explicit nature of the allegations are shocking and has thrown into question, the loving memory I had of him', Sky News reported.
'How this matter could have been concealed for so long and in so many ways, raises further disturbing questions.'
He said that he loved his father 'very much' and he was a 'wonderful dad'.
But he added 'that aspect of our relationship... does not blind me from an objective assessment of circumstances'.
He said he stood 'unequivocally in support of any legitimate investigation into these allegations.
'I will continue to support the principles of truth, justice, accountability, and fairness, regardless of where that journey may lead. No one is above the law.'
Omar, the youngest of Fayed's four children with his second wife, Finnish model Heini Wathen, previously conceded that his father was an 'old-school chauvinist'.
He told friends: 'Perhaps he was like an older version of Donald Trump.'
Michael Ward, managing director of Harrods, said in a statement that it is clear Al Fayed 'presided over a toxic culture of secrecy, intimidation, fear of repercussion and sexual misconduct'.
Mr Ward, who worked for Al Fayed for four years, said he was 'not aware of his criminality and abuse' and described it as a 'shameful period in the business' history'.
He said an independent review was underway into issues arising from the allegations and that he had 'provided all the information I have to ensure my own conduct can be reviewed alongside that of my colleagues'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. On Friday, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs. However, the broadcaster was granted a stay on paying out the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal. The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees. Eoin McCullough SC, for the broadcaster, told trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens on Tuesday that he was applying for a stay pending a decision on whether to take an appeal. He said his client had not determined if it would appeal, but added that he was seeking a stay until the end of the appeal period. In making its decision, the jury also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and the corporation had not acted in a fair and reasonable way. When asked by the judge for what grounds an appeal could be taken, Mr McCullough said the court had rejected applications by the defence on matters put to the jury relating to Section 26 of the Defamation Act. In particular, he questioned the decision to reject an application to withdraw the question of 'good faith' to the jury – and the order in which that question was asked of the members. The jury was asked the good faith question before making a decision on whether the publication was fair and reasonable. Mr McCullough said it was inevitable that the jury would find against him on the matter of fair and reasonable action once it had already found against him on good faith. Mr Justice Alexander Owens agreed with counsel that there may be grounds for an appeal on the fact that the jury was first asked to consider whether the actions were in good faith before considering whether the actions were fair and reasonable. Tom Hogan SC, for Mr Adams, said that if the court was going to grant a stay, it should be on the basis of something being paid towards the award. Mr Justice Alexander Owens granted the stay subject to the conditions that 50,000 euros be paid towards damages and 250,000 euros towards the solicitors' fees. However, this can also be appealed against. Mr McCullough had raised other potential grounds for appeal, including the court's decision not to allow Mr Donaldson's daughter to give another 'version' of matters given in evidence by the family's former solicitor Ciaran Shiels. He also said an appeal may be grounded on the exclusion of the evidence of Austin Stack and historian Eunan O'Halpin. He said an appeal could further be grounded on the defendants being excluded from taking on the issue of whether Mr Adams was in the IRA, arguing that this could be put forward as significant acts of misconduct which would speak towards reputation. Mr Adams denies being a member of the IRA. Mr McCullough also raised comments by the judge which referred to newspaper reports about Mr Adams that were called upon during cross-examination as 'rot' and 'blather'. He said that based on all of these issues, the jury determination of a 100,000 euro quantum for damages was itself unsustainable, further stating that the circulation of the programme and article was 'very small' and combined with a 'very damaged reputation'. Mr Hogan said he could not say that there were not some points that were arguable, but added he did not want to 'fight the appeal now'. He said there was a 'very significant inequality of arms in this case' and questioned whether the application was strategic. He said an appeal had to be brought on a bona fide basis. Mr McCullough said it was 'surprising' if not a 'little frustrating' to hear a suggestion that he was acting short of good faith. He said all he had said was that his client had not made up its mind and that any appeal should be allowed to proceed in the usual way. He had argued that it may be difficult and complicated to get the amounts paid out back should he prevail on appeal. Mr Justice Alexander Owens said he was 'not really persuaded' on the grounds of the appeal, other than the order of the questions on 'good faith' and 'fair and reasonable'. He made the order of the payment of partial damages and costs. It is open to the BBC to seek a further stay against that payment at the Court of Appeal. Last week, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said the broadcaster has insurance and 'makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims'. Separately, the counsel discussed whether the article – which remains online – could be geoblocked in the Republic of Ireland. On the issue of seeking an injunction, Mr Hogan said he had been discussing the matter with Mr McCullough and that it may be technologically possible. He added that there had been a lot of talk over the weekend over BBC services being blocked in the Republic of Ireland. Mr Justice Alexander Owens replied: 'I heard that, I don't imagine that will happen.' The judge questioned what jurisdiction he had to make an order on the BBC, which is abroad. He added that it had been put to the jurors that he would not be able to make such an order and that their award of damages was the remedy on the matter. Mr Hogan agreed that it was not a matter to be decided on Tuesday.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. On Friday, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs. However, the broadcaster was granted a stay on paying out the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal. The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees. Eoin McCullough SC, for the broadcaster, told trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens on Tuesday that he was applying for a stay pending a decision on whether to take an appeal. He said his client had not determined if it would appeal, but added that he was seeking a stay until the end of the appeal period. In making its decision, the jury also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and the corporation had not acted in a fair and reasonable way. When asked by the judge for what grounds an appeal could be taken, Mr McCullough said the court had rejected applications by the defence on matters put to the jury relating to Section 26 of the Defamation Act. In particular, he questioned the decision to reject an application to withdraw the question of 'good faith' to the jury – and the order in which that question was asked of the members. The jury was asked the good faith question before making a decision on whether the publication was fair and reasonable. Mr McCullough said it was inevitable that the jury would find against him on the matter of fair and reasonable action once it had already found against him on good faith. Mr Justice Alexander Owens agreed with counsel that there may be grounds for an appeal on the fact that the jury was first asked to consider whether the actions were in good faith before considering whether the actions were fair and reasonable. Tom Hogan SC, for Mr Adams, said that if the court was going to grant a stay, it should be on the basis of something being paid towards the award. Mr Justice Alexander Owens granted the stay subject to the conditions that 50,000 euros be paid towards damages and 250,000 euros towards the solicitors' fees. However, this can also be appealed against. Mr McCullough had raised other potential grounds for appeal, including the court's decision not to allow Mr Donaldson's daughter to give another 'version' of matters given in evidence by the family's former solicitor Ciaran Shiels. He also said an appeal may be grounded on the exclusion of the evidence of Austin Stack and historian Eunan O'Halpin. He said an appeal could further be grounded on the defendants being excluded from taking on the issue of whether Mr Adams was in the IRA, arguing that this could be put forward as significant acts of misconduct which would speak towards reputation. Mr Adams denies being a member of the IRA. Mr McCullough also raised comments by the judge which referred to newspaper reports about Mr Adams that were called upon during cross-examination as 'rot' and 'blather'. He said that based on all of these issues, the jury determination of a 100,000 euro quantum for damages was itself unsustainable, further stating that the circulation of the programme and article was 'very small' and combined with a 'very damaged reputation'. Mr Hogan said he could not say that there were not some points that were arguable, but added he did not want to 'fight the appeal now'. He said there was a 'very significant inequality of arms in this case' and questioned whether the application was strategic. He said an appeal had to be brought on a bona fide basis. Mr McCullough said it was 'surprising' if not a 'little frustrating' to hear a suggestion that he was acting short of good faith. He said all he had said was that his client had not made up its mind and that any appeal should be allowed to proceed in the usual way. He had argued that it may be difficult and complicated to get the amounts paid out back should he prevail on appeal. Mr Justice Alexander Owens said he was 'not really persuaded' on the grounds of the appeal, other than the order of the questions on 'good faith' and 'fair and reasonable'. He made the order of the payment of partial damages and costs. It is open to the BBC to seek a further stay against that payment at the Court of Appeal. Last week, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said the broadcaster has insurance and 'makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims'. Separately, the counsel discussed whether the article – which remains online – could be geoblocked in the Republic of Ireland. On the issue of seeking an injunction, Mr Hogan said he had been discussing the matter with Mr McCullough and that it may be technologically possible. He added that there had been a lot of talk over the weekend over BBC services being blocked in the Republic of Ireland. Mr Justice Alexander Owens replied: 'I heard that, I don't imagine that will happen.' The judge questioned what jurisdiction he had to make an order on the BBC, which is abroad. He added that it had been put to the jurors that he would not be able to make such an order and that their award of damages was the remedy on the matter. Mr Hogan agreed that it was not a matter to be decided on Tuesday.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
BBC defends Gaza coverage after White House criticism
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the corporation, after updating an article's headline with new information, had to 'correct and take down' its story about fatalities and injuries following a reported incident near an aid distribution centre in Rafah. The BBC said it has not removed its story and explained that its headlines about the incident were 'updated throughout the day with the latest fatality figures as they came in from various sources', which is 'totally normal practice'. In a press briefing on Tuesday, Ms Leavitt responded to a question about the incident and said: 'The administration is aware of those reports and we are currently looking into the veracity of them because, unfortunately, unlike some in the media, we don't take the word of Hamas with total truth. 'We like to look into it when they speak, unlike the BBC, who had multiple headlines, they wrote, 'Israeli tank kills 26', 'Israeli tank kills 21', 'Israeli gunfire kills 31', 'Red Cross says, 21 people were killed in an aid incident'. 'And then, oh, wait, they had to correct and take down their entire story, saying 'We reviewed the footage and couldn't find any evidence of anything'.' While she was speaking Ms Leavitt held up a document that appeared to show a social media post from X, formerly Twitter, with the different headlines. The person who posted the headlines also posted a screenshot from a BBC live blog and wrote: 'The admission that it was all a lie.' The headline from the blog post read: 'Claim graphic video is linked to aid distribution site in Gaza is incorrect.' A BBC spokesperson said this came from the a BBC Verify online report, and not the corporation's story about the killings in Rafah, saying that a viral video posted on social media was not linked to the aid distribution centre it claimed to show. Ms Leavitt added: 'We're going to look into reports before we confirm them from this podium or before we take action, and I suggest that journalists who actually care about truth do the same to reduce the amount of misinformation that's going around the globe on this front.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'The claim the BBC took down a story after reviewing footage is completely wrong. We did not remove any story and we stand by our journalism. 'Our news stories and headlines about Sunday's aid distribution centre incident were updated throughout the day with the latest fatality figures as they came in from various sources. 'These were always clearly attributed, from the first figure of 15 from medics, through the 31 killed from the Hamas-run health ministry to the final Red Cross statement of 'at least 21' at their field hospital. 'This is totally normal practice on any fast-moving news story. 'Completely separately, a BBC Verify online report on Monday reported a viral video posted on social media was not linked to the aid distribution centre it claimed to show. 'This video did not run on BBC news channels and had not informed our reporting. Conflating these two stories is simply misleading. 'It is vital to bring people the truth about what is happening in Gaza. International journalists are not currently allowed into Gaza and we would welcome the support of the White House in our call for immediate access.' The corporation has faced a backlash over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict and it emerged earlier in the year that a documentary it aired about Gaza featured the son of a senior Hamas figure. Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone was removed from BBC iPlayer after it emerged that the child narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture.
