David Johnson wrote:
> "How do you know? You are always taking people to task for not
> backing up their pinions/allegations with facts so how do you
> know it is a tabloid smear story?"
>
> I did not say "I know". Got that? What I did say, to be
> precise, is
>
> "This has all the wonderful hallmarks of a tabloid smear story"
>
> This is obviously not the same as stating - I know that this is
> definitely a smear story.
I think most readers would miss that nuance.
>
> Apparently, as a tabloid journalist in the past, you will know
> that to prove a negative is somewhat difficult.
>
> David Johnson " Essex Lad you are a kiddie fiddler".
>
> Essex Lad "Oh no, I am not".
>
> DJ "Prove it"
>
> Essex Lad "Err"
>
> All you can do in the situation is disprove the evidence given
> and since the evidence given to the police was not sufficient
> to bring a case, there is nothing to disprove.
That does not mean that there is no smoke without fire. Lots of people get away with stuff yet are as guilty as sin.
>
> And the hallmarks of a smear story tend to include:
>
> 1. The victim has snuffed it so that libel laws do not apply.
> 2. An absence of any proof whatsoever. The fact that this was
> already investigated years ago and turned down because there
> was not sufficient evidence.
> 3. The level of innuendo e.g. "BBC insiders" complaining that
> it was pulled because of a BBC tribute programme being planned.
> "Colourful character" etc etc.
>
> ""The "victim" wouldn't have been by herself in the back of his
> car then if she was being taken advantage of, would she?"
>
> Not a hugely, relevant point !wink!. Clearly I refer to the
> fact that there was no corroborating evidence to support her
> claim.
No, you missed my linguistic point. You wrote she was alone in the back of the car when he took advantage - therefore, she wasn't alone.
>
> "Remember the Jersey children's home... "
>
> WTF has that got to do with Jimmy Savile?
Er, he was a regular visitor.
>
> "but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the
> world."
>
> They don't apply to the dead. Hence the weird and wonderful
> rumours and stories about Princess Di after she died.
I know they don't apply to the dead.
>
> "So you want the press to become like the French, unable to
> report on misdemeanours?"
>
> No. What I want is a press that doesn't fill its pages with
> smear stories and tittle tattle for the mentally challenged.
>
It doesn't.
Sir Jimmy Saville NOT resting in peace!
Re: Lizard
As it happens I used to get paid ?6.00 to be in the audience of TOTP in the late 1960's, yes they used to pay you.My friends dad was a gaffer on the show so we got the tickets.
I do recall that our Jim was rather "popular with the younger ladies" at the time, but in those days we didn't have perverts, so I never gave it a second thought!!wink!
If I had known I would have gone up to Jim and said, "NO JIM, DONT USE YOUR WITTY BANTER AND THAT GONG OF YOURS TO SEDUCE YOUNG LADIES IT JUST AIN'T RIGHT GO HOME AND LOOK AFTER YOUR DEAR OLD MUM INSTEAD!"
I'm not sure he would have paid too much attention to a schoolboy with a pudding bowl haircut though!
<http://www.jimslip.com>
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
"I think most readers would miss that nuance."
Most readers who make little effort to understand someone else's post, would miss that nuance.
"That does not mean that there is no smoke without fire. Lots of people get away with stuff yet are as guilty as sin."
Ah yes, the old tabloid fallback for a smear story. There was no evidence that would stand up in a court of law, but remember the old adage, there is "no smoke without fire".
"No, you missed my linguistic point. You wrote she was alone in the back of the car when he took advantage - therefore, she wasn't alone".
No I didn't. I understood it straightaway and thought it was a bit silly and irrelevant. The context in which I wrote, made it obvious what was meant.
"Remember the Jersey children's home... "
>
> WTF has that got to do with Jimmy Savile?
Er, he was a regular visitor."
Well, if that is true, so what? Any proof of misdemeanours committed by Savile there? Any charges made by people who worked or lived there? Any cases brought?
Charity workers and health workers visit prisons. That doesn't mean they have topped the prisoners that are found dead in there.
Given I had not heard of the above, I thought I would look at the websites that reference it. Here is an example
http://iamjamesward.com/tag/jimmy-savile/
Now this website gives the impression that it is inhabited by people who aren't operating with a full deck of cards. I also notice that there is a whole bundle of stories that came out on the net, just days after he died. What a coincidence?
"but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the
world."
>
They don't apply to the dead. Hence the weird and wonderful
> rumours and stories about Princess Di after she died.
I know they don't apply to the dead."
Well why on earth do you make the point about the strictest libel laws when the stories you reference and the story Jim references, all appeared after his death? I assume what you want is a scenario when anyone can print in a newspaper totally unsubstantiated guff and there is no comeback?
" No. What I want is a press that doesn't fill its pages with
> smear stories and tittle tattle for the mentally challenged.
>
It doesn't."
As an ex-tabloid journalist, I can only assume that you have extremely low standards then. The tabloids tend to be viewed as being written for the reading skills of a 10 year old which could be why you missed my earlier nuance. Perhaps you are not used to "nuance". And any perusal of either the tabloids or the Leveson enquiry would tell you that although they do occassionally have some good stuff in there, much of it is shots of Kerry Katona's knickers, who's shagging who and what is the latest happening amongst "stars" from the The Only THink is Essex.
Each to their own, I suppose, but I see little saving grace in their current celebrity, crap filled formats.
I will leave you and Robches to ponder the relevant conspiracy theories e.g "Ted Heath, the Prince of Wales and Jimmy Savile in wild child orgy"
THere's a starter. I understand there is some concern over doctored photos.
Most readers who make little effort to understand someone else's post, would miss that nuance.
"That does not mean that there is no smoke without fire. Lots of people get away with stuff yet are as guilty as sin."
Ah yes, the old tabloid fallback for a smear story. There was no evidence that would stand up in a court of law, but remember the old adage, there is "no smoke without fire".
"No, you missed my linguistic point. You wrote she was alone in the back of the car when he took advantage - therefore, she wasn't alone".
No I didn't. I understood it straightaway and thought it was a bit silly and irrelevant. The context in which I wrote, made it obvious what was meant.
"Remember the Jersey children's home... "
>
> WTF has that got to do with Jimmy Savile?
Er, he was a regular visitor."
Well, if that is true, so what? Any proof of misdemeanours committed by Savile there? Any charges made by people who worked or lived there? Any cases brought?
Charity workers and health workers visit prisons. That doesn't mean they have topped the prisoners that are found dead in there.
Given I had not heard of the above, I thought I would look at the websites that reference it. Here is an example
http://iamjamesward.com/tag/jimmy-savile/
Now this website gives the impression that it is inhabited by people who aren't operating with a full deck of cards. I also notice that there is a whole bundle of stories that came out on the net, just days after he died. What a coincidence?
"but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the
world."
>
They don't apply to the dead. Hence the weird and wonderful
> rumours and stories about Princess Di after she died.
I know they don't apply to the dead."
Well why on earth do you make the point about the strictest libel laws when the stories you reference and the story Jim references, all appeared after his death? I assume what you want is a scenario when anyone can print in a newspaper totally unsubstantiated guff and there is no comeback?
" No. What I want is a press that doesn't fill its pages with
> smear stories and tittle tattle for the mentally challenged.
>
It doesn't."
As an ex-tabloid journalist, I can only assume that you have extremely low standards then. The tabloids tend to be viewed as being written for the reading skills of a 10 year old which could be why you missed my earlier nuance. Perhaps you are not used to "nuance". And any perusal of either the tabloids or the Leveson enquiry would tell you that although they do occassionally have some good stuff in there, much of it is shots of Kerry Katona's knickers, who's shagging who and what is the latest happening amongst "stars" from the The Only THink is Essex.
Each to their own, I suppose, but I see little saving grace in their current celebrity, crap filled formats.
I will leave you and Robches to ponder the relevant conspiracy theories e.g "Ted Heath, the Prince of Wales and Jimmy Savile in wild child orgy"
THere's a starter. I understand there is some concern over doctored photos.
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> "That does not mean that there is no smoke without fire. Lots
> of people get away with stuff yet are as guilty as sin."
>
> Ah yes, the old tabloid fallback for a smear story. There was
> no evidence that would stand up in a court of law, but
> remember the old adage, there is "no smoke without fire".
So you only believe stories that would stand up in court? Robert Maxwell, James Goldsmith and Jeffrey Archer to name but three regularly fell back on the law to protect their dubious "reputations".
> "Remember the Jersey children's home... "
> >
> > WTF has that got to do with Jimmy Savile?
>
> Er, he was a regular visitor."
>
> Well, if that is true, so what? Any proof of misdemeanours
> committed by Savile there? Any charges made by people who
> worked or lived there? Any cases brought?
>
> Charity workers and health workers visit prisons. That doesn't
> mean they have topped the prisoners that are found dead in
> there.
>
> Given I had not heard of the above, I thought I would look at
> the websites that reference it. Here is an example
>
> http://iamjamesward.com/tag/jimmy-savile/
>
> Now this website gives the impression that it is inhabited by
> people who aren't operating with a full deck of cards. I also
> notice that there is a whole bundle of stories that came out on
> the net, just days after he died. What a coincidence?
>
> "but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the
> world."
> >
> They don't apply to the dead. Hence the weird and wonderful
> > rumours and stories about Princess Di after she died.
>
> I know they don't apply to the dead."
>
> Well why on earth do you make the point about the strictest
> libel laws when the stories you reference and the story Jim
> references, all appeared after his death? I assume what you
> want is a scenario when anyone can print in a newspaper totally
> unsubstantiated guff and there is no comeback?
No, not at all. But see my point above - they all (except Archer) managed to avoid exposure until after death.
>
> " No. What I want is a press that doesn't fill its pages with
> > smear stories and tittle tattle for the mentally challenged.
> >
> It doesn't."
>
> As an ex-tabloid journalist, I can only assume that you have
> extremely low standards then. The tabloids tend to be viewed
> as being written for the reading skills of a 10 year old which
> could be why you missed my earlier nuance. Perhaps you are not
> used to "nuance". And any perusal of either the tabloids or
> the Leveson enquiry would tell you that although they do
> occassionally have some good stuff in there, much of it is
> shots of Kerry Katona's knickers, who's shagging who and what
> is the latest happening amongst "stars" from the The Only THink
> is Essex.
Perhaps that's because that's what people want to read - not worthy dissertations about how many kids have been taken out of non-existent "poverty" or how much good our foreign aid is doing. People buy tabloids and gossip mags. I would guess that is because they are interested. They buy the heavies in much smaller numbers. The problem with Leveson was that neither he nor his lawyers actually understood how newspapers are put together.
>
> Each to their own, I suppose, but I see little saving grace in
> their current celebrity, crap filled formats.
>
So I'm guessing that you don't buy them and prefer to read The Guardian. Good for you and by all means carry on sneering at tabloid readers from your Blackpool (ivory) Tower...
> "That does not mean that there is no smoke without fire. Lots
> of people get away with stuff yet are as guilty as sin."
>
> Ah yes, the old tabloid fallback for a smear story. There was
> no evidence that would stand up in a court of law, but
> remember the old adage, there is "no smoke without fire".
So you only believe stories that would stand up in court? Robert Maxwell, James Goldsmith and Jeffrey Archer to name but three regularly fell back on the law to protect their dubious "reputations".
> "Remember the Jersey children's home... "
> >
> > WTF has that got to do with Jimmy Savile?
>
> Er, he was a regular visitor."
>
> Well, if that is true, so what? Any proof of misdemeanours
> committed by Savile there? Any charges made by people who
> worked or lived there? Any cases brought?
>
> Charity workers and health workers visit prisons. That doesn't
> mean they have topped the prisoners that are found dead in
> there.
>
> Given I had not heard of the above, I thought I would look at
> the websites that reference it. Here is an example
>
> http://iamjamesward.com/tag/jimmy-savile/
>
> Now this website gives the impression that it is inhabited by
> people who aren't operating with a full deck of cards. I also
> notice that there is a whole bundle of stories that came out on
> the net, just days after he died. What a coincidence?
>
> "but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the
> world."
> >
> They don't apply to the dead. Hence the weird and wonderful
> > rumours and stories about Princess Di after she died.
>
> I know they don't apply to the dead."
>
> Well why on earth do you make the point about the strictest
> libel laws when the stories you reference and the story Jim
> references, all appeared after his death? I assume what you
> want is a scenario when anyone can print in a newspaper totally
> unsubstantiated guff and there is no comeback?
No, not at all. But see my point above - they all (except Archer) managed to avoid exposure until after death.
>
> " No. What I want is a press that doesn't fill its pages with
> > smear stories and tittle tattle for the mentally challenged.
> >
> It doesn't."
>
> As an ex-tabloid journalist, I can only assume that you have
> extremely low standards then. The tabloids tend to be viewed
> as being written for the reading skills of a 10 year old which
> could be why you missed my earlier nuance. Perhaps you are not
> used to "nuance". And any perusal of either the tabloids or
> the Leveson enquiry would tell you that although they do
> occassionally have some good stuff in there, much of it is
> shots of Kerry Katona's knickers, who's shagging who and what
> is the latest happening amongst "stars" from the The Only THink
> is Essex.
Perhaps that's because that's what people want to read - not worthy dissertations about how many kids have been taken out of non-existent "poverty" or how much good our foreign aid is doing. People buy tabloids and gossip mags. I would guess that is because they are interested. They buy the heavies in much smaller numbers. The problem with Leveson was that neither he nor his lawyers actually understood how newspapers are put together.
>
> Each to their own, I suppose, but I see little saving grace in
> their current celebrity, crap filled formats.
>
So I'm guessing that you don't buy them and prefer to read The Guardian. Good for you and by all means carry on sneering at tabloid readers from your Blackpool (ivory) Tower...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
"So you only believe stories that would stand up in court? Robert Maxwell, James Goldsmith and Jeffrey Archer to name but three regularly fell back on the law to protect their dubious "reputations".
No but I do think "evidence" is quite an important factor. Know what I mean?
For some bizarre reason you think it appropriate to link Robert Maxwell, James Goldsmith and Jeffrey Archer with the story of Jimmy Savile in terms of their reputation being affected after their deaths. You are comparing apples with mini mokes.
1. Maxwell was numero uno and when he went under the waves there was a panic with people concerned about getting their money back. The empire crashed. The independents were called in and they found he had been knocking off the pension fund money. This discovery is more about piss poor financial regulation than anything else. But what's new there?
2. Goldsmith sued journalists, but I wasn't aware that was a crime in itself.
3. As you rightly pointed out, Jeffrey Archer's willingness to get legal help didn't stop him from doing a prison stretch.
None of the above have any similarity with Savile in terms of their cases whatsoever except that they weren't keen on being libelled as they saw it. They were mainly financial regulation type issues.
"Perhaps that's because that's what people want to read People buy tabloids and gossip mags. I would guess that is because they are interested. They buy the heavies in much smaller numbers".
THe above is a statement of the bleeding obvious. That doesn't make writing innuendo-laden, smear stories in the tabloids any more or less valid.
"The problem with Leveson was that neither he nor his lawyers actually understood how newspapers are put together."
One thing that Leveson did understand was the full panoply of tabloid techniques both immoral and/or illegal which resulted in some newspaper organisations being a cancer in society and politics, in particular.
"Good for you and by all means carry on sneering at tabloid readers"
I will do, because any adult who gets their kicks at reading stuff every day written for a 9/10 year old, full of innuendo, half-truths, smear stories and moronic guff is worthy of contempt. Particularly the ones that read it and then start spouting the half truths, innuendo as if it is copper-bottomed, 100% truth. They'd be better off with the Beano.
"Blackpool", "Ivory Tower". Contradiction in terms?
PS "Essex Lad does not deny being a kiddie fiddler". "Essex Lad' love child, fatherless Stephanie from Billericay demands paternity test match with Essex Lad DNA". Journalist insider states "We always had our concerns about Essex Lad" . "Daphne" from Darlington, emerging from a 2 stretch at Low Newton prison, states that she was molested by Essex Lad in 1957. etc etc.
Its dead easy to write this crap isn't it?
No but I do think "evidence" is quite an important factor. Know what I mean?
For some bizarre reason you think it appropriate to link Robert Maxwell, James Goldsmith and Jeffrey Archer with the story of Jimmy Savile in terms of their reputation being affected after their deaths. You are comparing apples with mini mokes.
1. Maxwell was numero uno and when he went under the waves there was a panic with people concerned about getting their money back. The empire crashed. The independents were called in and they found he had been knocking off the pension fund money. This discovery is more about piss poor financial regulation than anything else. But what's new there?
2. Goldsmith sued journalists, but I wasn't aware that was a crime in itself.
3. As you rightly pointed out, Jeffrey Archer's willingness to get legal help didn't stop him from doing a prison stretch.
None of the above have any similarity with Savile in terms of their cases whatsoever except that they weren't keen on being libelled as they saw it. They were mainly financial regulation type issues.
"Perhaps that's because that's what people want to read People buy tabloids and gossip mags. I would guess that is because they are interested. They buy the heavies in much smaller numbers".
THe above is a statement of the bleeding obvious. That doesn't make writing innuendo-laden, smear stories in the tabloids any more or less valid.
"The problem with Leveson was that neither he nor his lawyers actually understood how newspapers are put together."
One thing that Leveson did understand was the full panoply of tabloid techniques both immoral and/or illegal which resulted in some newspaper organisations being a cancer in society and politics, in particular.
"Good for you and by all means carry on sneering at tabloid readers"
I will do, because any adult who gets their kicks at reading stuff every day written for a 9/10 year old, full of innuendo, half-truths, smear stories and moronic guff is worthy of contempt. Particularly the ones that read it and then start spouting the half truths, innuendo as if it is copper-bottomed, 100% truth. They'd be better off with the Beano.
"Blackpool", "Ivory Tower". Contradiction in terms?
PS "Essex Lad does not deny being a kiddie fiddler". "Essex Lad' love child, fatherless Stephanie from Billericay demands paternity test match with Essex Lad DNA". Journalist insider states "We always had our concerns about Essex Lad" . "Daphne" from Darlington, emerging from a 2 stretch at Low Newton prison, states that she was molested by Essex Lad in 1957. etc etc.
Its dead easy to write this crap isn't it?
-
andy at handiwork
- Posts: 4113
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Coincidence?
One Boxing Day evening a few years ago Saville led a choir round the wards of Leeds General Infirmary, singing carols for the patients. Later that night I had a call from the hospital to say my mother had died. Coincidence? You decide.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Coincidence?
It's funny you should mention that but I have heard similar stories from the bereaved on that ill-fated night in Leeds General.
There were some fears that it was down to Jimmy's atonal singing but a Leeds General "insider" told me that there were more sinister forces at play on the wards that evening.
There were some fears that it was down to Jimmy's atonal singing but a Leeds General "insider" told me that there were more sinister forces at play on the wards that evening.
-
andy at handiwork
- Posts: 4113
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Coincidence?
On reflection I tend towards the quality or otherwise of the shell-suited bling-meister's singing being to blame..
Re: Our Jim victim or predator?
Looks like a kindly, harmless old gent to me and at least he looked after his mum!
[img]http://www.jewellerswindow.co.uk/conten ... /jimmy.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.jewellerswindow.co.uk/conten ... /jimmy.jpg[/img]
<http://www.jimslip.com>
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
"Daphne"
> from Darlington, emerging from a 2 stretch at Low Newton
> prison, states that she was molested by Essex Lad in 1957. etc
> etc.
>
> Its dead easy to write this crap isn't it?
Indeed especially since I wasn't even alive in 1957...
"Daphne"
> from Darlington, emerging from a 2 stretch at Low Newton
> prison, states that she was molested by Essex Lad in 1957. etc
> etc.
>
> Its dead easy to write this crap isn't it?
Indeed especially since I wasn't even alive in 1957...