Sir Jimmy Saville NOT resting in peace!

[Jonone]

[David Johnson]

You are out of touch

Every so often, exact figures are exposed during the course of litigation. For example, Ferdinand v MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB) revealed that Carly Storey was paid ?16,000 by the defendant, Mirror Group Newspapers. But the judgment does not report how much her agent, Max Clifford, was paid on top of that.

When former Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner, Brian Paddick, won damages and an apology from Associated Newspapers, it was reported that his former partner and ex-fiancee were paid ?100,000 and ?6,000 respectively by the Mail on Sunday for their stories. The newspaper also put up the former partner in a Vienna luxury hotel for a week while he was being interviewed

One lawyer speculates that the Sun or News of the World would pay something like ?10,000 for a simple story, but up to ?250,000 for a front page splash that would really increase circulation. Media reports put the Rebecca Loos deal with News of the World at ?300,000 ? but we don?t know what cut her negotiator, Max Clifford, took.

Richard Peppiatt, the former Daily Star reporter, says that people would ring up his former employer expecting tens of thousands of pounds, but the reality was the ?low thousands? for a kiss and tell, depending on the fame of the person and the evidence. Additionally, it would often be the newspaper approaching the subject rather than the other way around.

Final payments would often be much lower than those initially negotiated. Only in exceptional circumstance would the newspaper pay cash up front, reducing the kiss-and-teller?s ?bargaining chips? once the story was published, says Peppiatt.

This is a tactic that was exposed in Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB): the figure offered by News of the World to ?Woman E? was ?25,000 but she only received ?12,000 after she delivered the video material.

[Flat_Eric]

Well I watched the documentary and - if true - it was pretty damning stuff. The witnesses seemed far more credible than I thought they would as well, and a more varied bunch.

Either way I think it's safe to say that JS's "career" (such as it is now he's brown bread, but you know what I mean) and reputation are now fucked. Because this isn't going to go away.

But amid all this talk of the Met now launching an "investigation", I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering .... why, for fuck's sake? Given that he's been dead for a year and is now beyond the reach of the law.

In these times of austerity and cutbacks, surely their resources would be better employed tracking down nonces and other criminals who are still in the land of the living? The only possble "punishment" for him now as far as I can see is to be posthumously stripped of his knighthood.

- Eric

[steve56]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -dailymail

[max_tranmere]

I think I'm right in saying Robert Plant got married very young because his girlfriend was expecting a baby. He was married, and a dad, at age 20 or something. A few years later he is off touring the USA with the band - and bonking groupies left, right and centre.

Few people seem to show loyalty to their wives when away on tour. I remember Bill Wyman was the oldest member of the Rolling Stones, the only married one, and the only one with an official child (Brian Jones has numerous kids he never saw as a result of flings when he was a teenager). Bill Wyman used to bonk for England when the band was on tour - then go home to his wife and son when the tour ended.

[william]

Jimmy may indeed be dead - but the reality is that there are implications that have been brought out that need to be investigated - there may be people still about that had parts in this that can be charged, if its correct that Glitter was implicated then there is a case to answer there and he may well find himself on the wrong side of the law yet again. The thing is that the nature of the allegations and the implications that have occurred involve a lot more than Jimmy and this isnt going to go away - even the BBC are bricking it now as they are trying to damage limit what is happening.

So there will be quite a few worried individuals now.

[Essex Lad]

I'm really not and since I work on a tabloid newspaper and I'm guessing that you don't, I'm more inclined to think that I know what I'm talking about rather than you.

There are, obviously, cases where some stories go for huge sums of money but you suggested that there is a lot of money to be made by (the Jimmy Savile ladies and) those who sell stories to The Sun. That's simply not true.

If you read my original post properly, you will see that I said fees depend on several factors including the attractiveness of the kisser'n'teller and the fame level of the subject.

That explains the David Beckham and Rio Ferdinand stories. No idea when that lawyer speculated but I would bet my home on the fact that no one has been paid ?300,000 since Rebecca Loos for a kiss'n'tell. He is talking bollocks. Newspapers cannot afford to pay those kind of sums anymore. Newspapers will occasionally pay over the odds for a book serialisation, especially if the proprietor is trying to curry favour with the subject (usually a politician).

I said that newspapers are terrified of the Leveson Inquiry - how many kiss'n'tells have been published since Cameron ordered the inquiry?

I'm not sure why you are quoting Richard Peppiatt to support your point of view since he agrees with me that you simply do not make huge sums selling stories.

You are also substantiating your point of view with what is, in newspaper terms, ancient history - Rebecca Loos 2004, Max Mosley 2008, Carly Storey 2010. Find me a story where someone has made more than ?20,000 for a kiss'n'tell since Lord Leveson began sitting.

There are still big sums to be made from newspapers and magazines but these occur only when the subject is invading their own privacy - Jordan and Kerry Katona spring to mind.

And for your information Max Clifford normally takes a percentage of his "client's" fee, usually 40%.

> You are out of touch
>
> Every so often, exact figures are exposed during the course of
> litigation. For example, Ferdinand v MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2454
> (QB) revealed that Carly Storey was paid ?16,000 by the
> defendant, Mirror Group Newspapers. But the judgment does not
> report how much her agent, Max Clifford, was paid on top of
> that.
>
> When former Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner,
> Brian Paddick, won damages and an apology from Associated
> Newspapers, it was reported that his former partner and
> ex-fiancee were paid ?100,000 and ?6,000 respectively by the
> Mail on Sunday for their stories. The newspaper also put up
> the former partner in a Vienna luxury hotel for a week while
> he was being interviewed
>
> One lawyer speculates that the Sun or News of the World would
> pay something like ?10,000 for a simple story, but up to
> ?250,000 for a front page splash that would really increase
> circulation. Media reports put the Rebecca Loos deal with News
> of the World at ?300,000 ? but we don?t know what cut her
> negotiator, Max Clifford, took.
>
> Richard Peppiatt, the former Daily Star reporter, says that
> people would ring up his former employer expecting tens of
> thousands of pounds, but the reality was the ?low thousands?
> for a kiss and tell, depending on the fame of the person and
> the evidence. Additionally, it would often be the newspaper
> approaching the subject rather than the other way around.
>
> Final payments would often be much lower than those initially
> negotiated. Only in exceptional circumstance would the
> newspaper pay cash up front, reducing the kiss-and-teller?s
> ?bargaining chips? once the story was published, says Peppiatt.
>
> This is a tactic that was exposed in Mosley v News Group
> Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB): the figure offered by
> News of the World to ?Woman E? was ?25,000 but she only
> received ?12,000 after she delivered the video material.

[David Johnson]

The bottom line is people can get paid for stories. We can argue over what is "substantial".

People can get their stories out much easier when someone has died because of the libel and slander situation.

Neither payer nor payee is going to go out of the way to advertise that money is involved because that will undermine how readers perceive the story.

That's what I stated. That is clearly correct. All the rest is blah, blah.

[Sam Slater]

Leeds fans, dirty football, Chris Moyles, The Kaiser Cheifs' music, Chumbawumba and now Jimmy Saville. Just what do they put in the water up there?

[Arginald Valleywater]

I imagine a few senior BBC execs are twitching a little.......