Sir Jimmy Saville NOT resting in peace!

[andy at handiwork]

Cant see why being entombed in concrete would prevent DNA being taken. It wouldn't be too difficult to break the stuff with a drill. Perhaps cremation might be a better route.

[Peter]

pornoshop wrote:


> If I was trying to hide away from DNA evidence and people
> wanting to dig me up to look for evidence of accusations after
> my death that's what I would do!

Isn't his family and 'secret daughter' awaiting DNA tests to prove her claim? There must be DNA available for that to happen.

[David Johnson]

Not many people know this but the coffin was weighed down with Jim'll Fixit badges and he wasn't in the coffin which is why it was entombed in concrete.

Jim is alive and well and living with a "friend" in Blackpool. I know because I bought him a pint a week ago.

Mind, I am not one to gossip but his "female friend" was err, very young.

It could have been a "love child" though.

Did I ever tell you that I am the illegitimate son of a relationship between Kirk Douglas and Ingrid Bergmann? I only twigged when I started going into the Spartacus Bar and asking the pianist for Play it Again Sam.

Funny that!

[Essex Lad]

Sorry just got back from a shift on a tabloid tonight, so here are your answers.

David Johnson wrote:
>
> 1. Can individuals sell stories to newspapers and get
> substantial sums of money in return? Yes or No?

Not anymore no. The days of kissing and telling for ?20k upwards are long gone. Every single newspaper is terrified of the Leveson report so we are being good until its contents are released. Even years back the money wasn't that good - I know a model who did a kiss'n'tell on a sportsman for the News of the World and got ?5k - a nice enough sum but hardly life-changing. Many of the so-called kiss'n'tellers didn't earn the vast sums that you seem to imagine anyway and certainly not "substantial sums of money" then and certainly not now. I am talking purely about "Fleet Street" newspapers - other countries may be different.
>
> 2.Can individuals and newspapers avoid libel and slander cases
> for their stories re. events 40 years ago, by choosing a target
> who died a year ago? Yes or No?

Yes although they would be unlikely to get paid for a story that happened years ago about someone who is dead. They might get "expenses", which might amount to a couple of hundred quid, if that.
>
> 3. If you as an individual or a newspaper received/paid for
> that story, would you be likely to highlight/make known that
> you received/ got paid for the story? Yes or No?

Well, nowadays you wouldn't get paid anyway so the question is redundant. In the past newspaper payments depended on all sorts of things - who the story was about; would readers be interested; is it likely to increase sales; how attractive is the kisser and teller and would she be willing to pose topless or in lingerie. If the answers are a big star; yes; yes; very nice and yes then she could expect a reasonable payday.

The victims of Jimmy Savile are now all in their 50s and 60s so wouldn't qualify on the last two - therefore, won't get paid.

[David Johnson]

Can individuals sell stories to newspapers and get
> substantial sums of money in return? Yes or No?

Not anymore no.

Better tell the Sun to stop then!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/24 ... e-Sun.html

They refer to stories being worth thousands with more being paid if you have pictures. ?5K might be nothing to you but for a lot of people it is a substantial sum of money.

2.Can individuals and newspapers avoid libel and slander cases
> for their stories re. events 40 years ago, by choosing a target
> who died a year ago? Yes or No?

Yes although they would be unlikely to get paid for a story that happened years ago about someone who is dead."

Looking at the wall to wall news coverage of the Savile story in the newspapers and on television, I don't see how you can generalise with a one size fits all approach as you do with regard to payments for stories that happened years ago.

"3. If you as an individual or a newspaper received/paid for
> that story, would you be likely to highlight/make known that
> you received/ got paid for the story? Yes or No?"

You dont seem to have understood the question. You ask Bamboo who has paid the women re. the Savile story. My point is that in the event of payments being made for a story, neither the payer nor the payee are going out of the way to highlight the payment. Rather undermines the veracity of the story being peddled!!!

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> Can individuals sell stories to newspapers and get
> > substantial sums of money in return? Yes or No?
>
> Not anymore no.
>
> Better tell the Sun to stop then!
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/24 ... e-Sun.html
>
> They refer to stories being worth thousands with more being
> paid if you have pictures. ?5K might be nothing to you but for
> a lot of people it is a substantial sum of money.

Of course they say that but they NEVER NEVER pay "thousands". Give a tip to a paper and you'll get ?50, a lead (the main story on the page) and you'll get ?400 or so. David, even you should know not to believe everything you read in the newspapers!
>
> 2.Can individuals and newspapers avoid libel and slander cases
> > for their stories re. events 40 years ago, by choosing a
> target
> > who died a year ago? Yes or No?
>
> Yes although they would be unlikely to get paid for a story
> that happened years ago about someone who is dead."
>
> Looking at the wall to wall news coverage of the Savile story
> in the newspapers and on television, I don't see how you can
> generalise with a one size fits all approach as you do with
> regard to payments for stories that happened years ago.

Did the girl (not his ex-girlfriend) who came forward to accuse Gary Glitter get paid? No. Did any of Jonathan King's victims? No. They were "stories that happened years ago".

>
> "3. If you as an individual or a newspaper received/paid for
> > that story, would you be likely to highlight/make known that
> > you received/ got paid for the story? Yes or No?"
>
> You dont seem to have understood the question. You ask Bamboo
> who has paid the women re. the Savile story. My point is that
> in the event of payments being made for a story, neither the
> payer nor the payee are going out of the way to highlight the
> payment. Rather undermines the veracity of the story being
> peddled!!!

No, it doesn't because everyone will get paid but the sums are relatively tiny or non-existent.

[mark cremona]

Its starting look like him and Gary Glitter had a regular 'pedo club' going on at the Beeb.

[Peter]

I'm Spartacus

[max_tranmere]

I think it's appaling the hatchet-job some people try and do to deceased celebrities - they have complete free reign to do it as they know there will be no come back. I remember reading a review of a book written about the late drummer of Led Zeppelin, John Bonham. It was written some years after he died and basically described him as a complete bastard. The reivew, in Q Magazine, said it was one of the worst character assassinations since Albert Goldman wrote that awful book about John Lennon. Q magazine said in the review: "sadly the dead can't sue". They were right. Expect more books and claims as the years go on about dead celebs - people do this as there is no possible penalty to pay for doing it.

[andy at handiwork]

Max wrote: '...people do this as there is no possible penalty to pay for doing it.'


It isnt as simple as that. Bear in mind that it is a very brave person who accuses a rich person, what with the way the libel laws work in this country. The truth about Robert Maxwell for example, would have emerged long before his death were it not for his habit of threatening potential accusers with the high court.

As for members of LZ, I've seen photos of 'off duty' get togethers where the females appeared, it is said by some, (not me M'lud) to be very on the edge age-wise.

[img]http://i108.piczo.com/view/2/p/f/6/q/g/ ... 0460_3.jpg[/img]

[img]http://img2.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/1 ... 0rffro.jpg[/img]