I would imagine a few ex rent boys are expecting a pay day..
Sir Jimmy Saville NOT resting in peace!
Re: Sir Jimmy Saville NOT resting in peace!
[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> The bottom line is people can get paid for stories. We can
> argue over what is "substantial".
You said people can get paid large amounts selling stories to newspapers. That is complete and utter bollocks.
>
> People can get their stories out much easier when someone has
> died because of the libel and slander situation.
Depends who they are and what the story is...
>
> 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.
So why claim that The Sun pays "thousands" when I know it doesn't and you don't know that it does?
>
> That's what I stated. That is clearly correct. All the rest is
> blah, blah.
So you can't actually answer any of the questions I asked then, can you? Just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about...
> The bottom line is people can get paid for stories. We can
> argue over what is "substantial".
You said people can get paid large amounts selling stories to newspapers. That is complete and utter bollocks.
>
> People can get their stories out much easier when someone has
> died because of the libel and slander situation.
Depends who they are and what the story is...
>
> 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.
So why claim that The Sun pays "thousands" when I know it doesn't and you don't know that it does?
>
> That's what I stated. That is clearly correct. All the rest is
> blah, blah.
So you can't actually answer any of the questions I asked then, can you? Just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about...
Re: Essex Lad
Many times on this forum, after someone has said something you have demanded that they back up their argument with facts.
So now I make the same challenge to you - answer my questions or in other words, put up or shut up.
So now I make the same challenge to you - answer my questions or in other words, put up or shut up.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Lad
"You said people can get paid large amounts selling stories to newspapers. That is complete and utter bollocks."
I used the term "substantial". WHere did I use the term "large"?
"People can get their stories out much easier when someone has
> died because of the libel and slander situation".
That is obviously the case with Savile which I thought was the subject of the thread. I have lost count of the number of people who have emerged with stories that are 30 or 40 years old since his death last year. That point is undeniable.
"So why claim that The Sun pays "thousands" when I know it doesn't and you don't know that it does?"
They say they pay thousands and I provided a link to that statement. WHy should I believe you instead?
As you well know the payments are kept out of the public eye for obvious reasons that I have already given. Often it only emerges in litigation which I have already provided a link to the "substantial" sums that have been paid.
"So you can't actually answer any of the questions I asked then, can you? Just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about..."
I have answered all your questions. Unfortunately for you "I know it doesn't" is not a particularly convincing answer on your part !!
I know pigs fly. There you go I have provided proof that I am right.
Have a nice weekend.
I used the term "substantial". WHere did I use the term "large"?
"People can get their stories out much easier when someone has
> died because of the libel and slander situation".
That is obviously the case with Savile which I thought was the subject of the thread. I have lost count of the number of people who have emerged with stories that are 30 or 40 years old since his death last year. That point is undeniable.
"So why claim that The Sun pays "thousands" when I know it doesn't and you don't know that it does?"
They say they pay thousands and I provided a link to that statement. WHy should I believe you instead?
As you well know the payments are kept out of the public eye for obvious reasons that I have already given. Often it only emerges in litigation which I have already provided a link to the "substantial" sums that have been paid.
"So you can't actually answer any of the questions I asked then, can you? Just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about..."
I have answered all your questions. Unfortunately for you "I know it doesn't" is not a particularly convincing answer on your part !!
I know pigs fly. There you go I have provided proof that I am right.
Have a nice weekend.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Lad
"So now I make the same challenge to you - answer my questions or in other words, put up or shut up."
Have you just woken up and are a bit confused? I have answered all your questions.
I have provided a link to the Sun statement that they can pay thousands for stories. I have given you a link to information that emerged from litigation about substantial sums paid for stories. We have the self-evident case of Savile in which lots of people are now emerging with their stories of 30-40 years ago, very conveniently in the year after he died. That backs up my statement obviously about the effect of libel and slander no longer applying.
To sum up your entire argument "I, Essex Lad, know better"
Not good enough, Lad! Could and should do better.
Have you just woken up and are a bit confused? I have answered all your questions.
I have provided a link to the Sun statement that they can pay thousands for stories. I have given you a link to information that emerged from litigation about substantial sums paid for stories. We have the self-evident case of Savile in which lots of people are now emerging with their stories of 30-40 years ago, very conveniently in the year after he died. That backs up my statement obviously about the effect of libel and slander no longer applying.
To sum up your entire argument "I, Essex Lad, know better"
Not good enough, Lad! Could and should do better.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Lad 2
You aren't very consistent are you?
Here is your answer in one post.
"Can individuals sell stories to newspapers and get
> > substantial sums of money in return? Yes or No?
>
> Not anymore no."
Here is your answer in another part of the thread after I showed you figures of payments for stories emerging from the results of litigation cases
"There are, obviously, cases where some stories go for huge sums of money "
You seem to be making it up as you go along, don't you?
Here is your answer in one post.
"Can individuals sell stories to newspapers and get
> > substantial sums of money in return? Yes or No?
>
> Not anymore no."
Here is your answer in another part of the thread after I showed you figures of payments for stories emerging from the results of litigation cases
"There are, obviously, cases where some stories go for huge sums of money "
You seem to be making it up as you go along, don't you?
Re: Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> "You said people can get paid large amounts selling stories to
> newspapers. That is complete and utter bollocks."
>
> I used the term "substantial". WHere did I use the term
> "large"?
>
Semantics.
> "So why claim that The Sun pays "thousands" when I know it
> doesn't and you don't know that it does?"
>
> They say they pay thousands and I provided a link to that
> statement. WHy should I believe you instead?
Er because I work in the industry and spent three years working on The Sun.
>
> As you well know the payments are kept out of the public eye
> for obvious reasons that I have already given. Often it only
> emerges in litigation which I have already provided a link to
> the "substantial" sums that have been paid.
>
> "So you can't actually answer any of the questions I asked
> then, can you? Just admit that you have no idea what you are
> talking about..."
>
> I have answered all your questions.
No you haven't. I asked for proof that these "substantial" (or large) sums are STILL BEING paid and you have singularly failed to provide any.
> "You said people can get paid large amounts selling stories to
> newspapers. That is complete and utter bollocks."
>
> I used the term "substantial". WHere did I use the term
> "large"?
>
Semantics.
> "So why claim that The Sun pays "thousands" when I know it
> doesn't and you don't know that it does?"
>
> They say they pay thousands and I provided a link to that
> statement. WHy should I believe you instead?
Er because I work in the industry and spent three years working on The Sun.
>
> As you well know the payments are kept out of the public eye
> for obvious reasons that I have already given. Often it only
> emerges in litigation which I have already provided a link to
> the "substantial" sums that have been paid.
>
> "So you can't actually answer any of the questions I asked
> then, can you? Just admit that you have no idea what you are
> talking about..."
>
> I have answered all your questions.
No you haven't. I asked for proof that these "substantial" (or large) sums are STILL BEING paid and you have singularly failed to provide any.
Re: Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> "So now I make the same challenge to you - answer my questions
> or in other words, put up or shut up."
>
> Have you just woken up and are a bit confused? I have answered
> all your questions.
No, you haven't.
>
> I have provided a link to the Sun statement that they can pay
> thousands for stories. I have given you a link to information
> that emerged from litigation about substantial sums paid for
> stories.
In the past - not now. That bit seems to be confusing you.
We have the self-evident case of Savile in which lots
> of people are now emerging with their stories of 30-40 years
> ago, very conveniently in the year after he died. That backs
> up my statement obviously about the effect of libel and slander
> no longer applying.
My point (which you seemed to have missed) is that there are lots of dead celebrities and stories don't appear about many just because they are no longer able to sue for libel.
>
> To sum up your entire argument "I, Essex Lad, know better"
> Not good enough, Lad! Could and should do better.
And of course in your many arguments on this board, that attitude could never be attributed to you.
I know better than you on this because it is the industry in which I have earned my living for the last 17 years. It's like going to a professional in some field and then saying why do you know better?
> "So now I make the same challenge to you - answer my questions
> or in other words, put up or shut up."
>
> Have you just woken up and are a bit confused? I have answered
> all your questions.
No, you haven't.
>
> I have provided a link to the Sun statement that they can pay
> thousands for stories. I have given you a link to information
> that emerged from litigation about substantial sums paid for
> stories.
In the past - not now. That bit seems to be confusing you.
We have the self-evident case of Savile in which lots
> of people are now emerging with their stories of 30-40 years
> ago, very conveniently in the year after he died. That backs
> up my statement obviously about the effect of libel and slander
> no longer applying.
My point (which you seemed to have missed) is that there are lots of dead celebrities and stories don't appear about many just because they are no longer able to sue for libel.
>
> To sum up your entire argument "I, Essex Lad, know better"
> Not good enough, Lad! Could and should do better.
And of course in your many arguments on this board, that attitude could never be attributed to you.
I know better than you on this because it is the industry in which I have earned my living for the last 17 years. It's like going to a professional in some field and then saying why do you know better?
Re: Lad 2
David Johnson wrote:
> You aren't very consistent are you?
>
> Here is your answer in one post.
>
> "Can individuals sell stories to newspapers and get
> > > substantial sums of money in return? Yes or No?
> >
> > Not anymore no."
>
>
> Here is your answer in another part of the thread after I
> showed you figures of payments for stories emerging from the
> results of litigation cases
>
> "There are, obviously, cases where some stories go for huge
> sums of money "
>
> You seem to be making it up as you go along, don't you?
I think the Blackpool air must be affecting your eyesight. I said all your examples are FROM THE PAST (hope the caps help the cataracts). Show me where this is still happening post-Leveson ie now or in the last year... You can't because it doesn't happen any more.
> You aren't very consistent are you?
>
> Here is your answer in one post.
>
> "Can individuals sell stories to newspapers and get
> > > substantial sums of money in return? Yes or No?
> >
> > Not anymore no."
>
>
> Here is your answer in another part of the thread after I
> showed you figures of payments for stories emerging from the
> results of litigation cases
>
> "There are, obviously, cases where some stories go for huge
> sums of money "
>
> You seem to be making it up as you go along, don't you?
I think the Blackpool air must be affecting your eyesight. I said all your examples are FROM THE PAST (hope the caps help the cataracts). Show me where this is still happening post-Leveson ie now or in the last year... You can't because it doesn't happen any more.