Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for ... Jonathan King. The former pop mogul re-entered my head as I watched this year's Eurovision and I thought: It's time I had a conversation with this strange, hugely talented/flawed, tainted loved-down ex-colossus of the pop world (and Eurovision).
The Guardian's Jon Ronson put it like this in 2001: "King's had a hand in almost every musical movement since the mid-1960s - psychedelic, novelty bubblegum pop, alternative pop, Eurovision, the Bay City Rollers, 10CC, the Rocky Horror Show, Genesis, Carter The Unstoppable Sex Machine, the Brit awards, and so on."
Then The Fall in 2001. He was sentenced to seven years in jail for sex with boys aged 14 and 15. He was released in 2005. I'll say no more - see his website for re-acquaintance, click here.
Jonathan King! I hope you're well! Naturally you came to mind during the latest Eurovision - I understand you were in Helsinki for the event. Would it be true to say the great UK public who voted for Scooch know fuck all about music? Should the UK abandon TV democracy in choosing the song for Europe?
Well, it was me who a) brought in public voting for the Song For Europe/Great British Song Contest AND b) who changed Eurovision to make it public phone votes instead of juries... I sometimes wonder whether it was the right thing to do (especially as the corruption scandal of phone vote charging escalates) but my genuine intention was - find a truly popular entry. We did with Love City Groove which brought in younger fans and ethnic music lovers (most played track on Kiss FM in London during Eurovision week, I was very proud of that), Gina G (I still think that was our best ever UK entry) and Katrina - so I think no, let the fans choose, but give them decent choices to select from (I'm still hugely proud of getting a song called Yodel In The Canyon Of Love into the contest).
Eurovision was always camp (Abba), then it became kitsch (Katrina), now it seems exceptionally queer (Serbia, Ukraine, France, UK etc etc) - would you agree? Feel free to disagree ....
I agree and don't like it. There's something unpleasantly homophobic about entries like Drama Queen. Camp is fun, so is Kitsch and both can be art. Gay caricatures offend me. Drag can be fun too but only when done with tongue firmly in cheek. Whilst some may find over-the-top caricatures amusing, I tend to find them mildly (and probably unintentionally) offensive.
What must be done about block voting?
Nothing. I'm all for it. It's cultural, not political. I found it hugely refreshing when Croatia gave Serbia 12 points. Eurovision achieved something that brute force never could. Before I won with Katrina, block voting was blamed for our 16 winless years. I said no, a hit will win. I was wrong (Love City Groove; Gina G) - it needs a hit AND a great performance. Block voting will not bring a winner. Serbia was, in my opinion, this year's best entry. Finland was last year's best performance (though I thought Russia's song was better and Dima Bilan was fabulous). Greece won before that.
Enough of this whingeing about block voting; it's like the Lib Dems going on about proportional representation. If you are the best, you will probably win. Yes, Cyprus will always give Greece 12 points but the eventual winner will probably get 10. And of course Ukraine understands Russia and Latvia and Portugal understands Spain. The UK have the biggest advantage of all anyway (again, one of my rule changes) - the language of English; I have no problems with block voting - it's just an excuse for those who don't understand music to moan.
Georgia should have won Euro 2007 - I love Sopho. Please adopt her ...
I thought the Hungarian woman had a fabulous voice. I did like Georgia. No hits in this year though whereas last year had several (Tornero by Romania should have been a global club smash).
Tell us something of the journey to Helsinki such as how are people with you in the cabin or at the airport ... do you have a staff who book your hotel and flights?
It's great. Never believe tabloid world. I've been out over 2 years now and the vast majority of encounters have been supportive and positive.
This is the reality. 99% don't recognise me (98% of the people in London are from Eastern Europe these days anyway). Of the 1% who recognise me, 99% think "that's a familiar face" without knowing quite who, and smile and nod as a result. Of the 1% who do know who I am, 99% think Everyone's Gone To The Moon or Entertainment USA or Eurovision or Una Paloma Blanca or whatever. Of the remaining 1% who remember the court case, 99% seem to feel I was stitched up and treated unfairly - they are the ones who shake my hand or say something nice (which happened 16 times in Helsinki - and not one negative). 100% of taxi drivers over the past two years have been positive. And of the final 1% who seeth with hatred for a Vile Pervert, 99% keep it inside and simply scowl.
I notice you championed the Arctic Monkeys ... even your sworn enemies would say you have had an extraordinary influence on and prescience about pop music for 40 odd years ... give us a snapshot of the current pop/rock music world and what's the next big thing ....
Yes I love the energy, enthusiasm and originality of the Arctics. The big problem at the moment is - the major music corporations are (rightly) dying in this download world and the thrashing of their death throes means we are being force fed crap which is their top priority but no good. However, the good news is... it's easier than ever for truly talented musicians to emerge via internet and other sources. That's how I found ORSON (No Tomorrow) after the industry had ignored them for 8 years.
I listened to your Vile Pervert track on You Tube, about a guy called Joe Meek who appears to have been reviled for his sexuality ... forgive my ignorance of him - is that right? This is from an album?
Ah; Vile Pervert is not about Joe, it's about the media, especially the tabloids, who love caricaturing people. The Joe Meek track is called He Stood In The Bath And He Stamped On The Floor (also on You Tube) - he was the greatest UK record producer in the 60's (Telstar by the Tornados; Have I The Right by the Honeycombs; Just Like Eddie - Heinz; Johnny Remember Me - John Leyton).
If you're a VERY good girl/boy I'll send you a promo copy of EARTH TO KING, the new collection. Albums are over; collections (and mine includes a second DVD with TEN HOURS of video autoblogs on it, very useful for insomnia) are the new "thing". Just give me a mail address.
Have you ever consulted a clairvoyante/other seer? What would you like most in the next life (if any)?
No, I've never done so. As for the next life, if it could be as happy as this one has been, I'll be totally content.
Tell us something of your life now since prison release ... you seem to be very busy - would you say you're making a journey back to the centre of the music industry, or is that impossible?
I've never left the centre of the music industry (2-3 visits a week in prison from MD's etc asking advice) and fully intend to remain useful to it if I can. Mind you, I am now VERY VERY OLD! Life since prison is exactly the same as it was before and during; I tend to adapt to fit the parameters with the greatest of ease. Not lost a single friend, still hugely busy socially and professionally.
And your health?, please be frank ....
Well, Madame Arcati, apart from now being Type 2 Diabetic (from prison food or lack of exercise or perhaps simply age... so many friends have found this late onset thing) and therefore having to watch diet and lifestyle, I'm fine thanks. Never smoked, never really drank much, never did drugs... Had lots of very satisfying, (totally consensual and always with mature teenagers) sex but now, at 62, I'm delighted that's in my past, not present or future.
May I ask about your criminal conviction for having sex with underage boys ... have any of these now middle-aged men been in touch since your release from jail? All these years later, have you reflected that you may have made a mistake; or do you think society has yet to comprehend the nature of your sexuality?
I've never intentionally had sex with anyone who didn't want to have sex with me. I happen to be innocent of the convictions against me and am still battling through the Appeal process to get them quashed.
The police tried to force down the ages of the teenagers who made false claims against me and generally failed to do so (the dates were changed to later - in one case two and a half years later - AFTER my defence was finished). They didn't even bother to go down the "no consent" road since there were so many return visits which rather implied they were enjoying themselves (which they were - often because we WEREN'T having sex).
I have to suspect I was targetted as the ages of consent were equalised TWO DAYS after my arrest (my entire philosophy, as a bisexual, was that it was ludicrous that a 16 year old girl could fall in love with me but a boy could not until he reached 21).
Remember, when I was a teenager, ANY gay sex was a criminal offence.
However, having said that, this entire brilliant experience has opened my eyes to the possibility that sometimes my seduction technique may have chosen to assume they were capable of dealing with future questions when I had not taken into account that changing social attitudes might create circumstances hard for them to accept.
I hope I never caused problems for anyone. Certainly I never intended to and a huge amount of past friends and lovers got in touch when all this started to express love, affection, support and sympathy.
My accusers ranged from the totally false (some I never even met, including one of the convictions and the man who started all this and only brought my name into it some time after other allegations about other people were ignored, on the advice, I believe, of a famous Public Relations person) to those who exaggerated enormously (met: yes, sex: no) and those who exaggerated slightly. Who knows why? There was a load of cash reward in it (especially adding in media fees); genuine delusion; revenge; desire for attention or sympathy; explanation for failures...
I re-read Richard Ellman's Oscar Wilde recently, brilliant book - have you read it? Jail didn't break you ....
No, but Stephen Fry has become a good friend.
I liked Jon Ronson's 2001 piece in the Guardian on your trial and conviction [click here] - was it fair?
No, not at all. I hated it; he failed to mention that all his intervewees had had their claims thrown out or abandoned (or I was acquitted in a second trial - conveniently ignored by the media). When I asked him why he didn't interview the 5 men from my convictions he said it was because he hadn't believed them! I like Jon and admire his writing but he was way out of his depth and got suckered by the police.
Is there anyone in your life now - love/sex/companionship? Tell us more ...
The same great love there has always been... my mirror.
Whom do you loathe and love most?
I love dozens - family, ex lovers, friends. I loathe nobody; it creates bile and negativity.
Are you happy?
Yes hugely; always have been. I've been incredibly lucky in my life; the variety of experiences has been amazing. From smash hits as a singer, writer, producer to hit TV shows, hit national weekly columns, from winning Eurovision to salvaging The Brits, from travel all over the world (256 Concorde flights)... the best hotels, food, lovers of both genders... great friends... and the recent fascinating world of miscarriages of justice, corruption, prisons, media demonisation - it could not have been more interesting and rewarding! Lots more to do.
As PM Gordon Brown will .... [complete sentence as you wish]
continue to bite his fingernails.
Thank you Mr King!
You're welcome. Let me know if you want any more and let me have a snail mail addie if you'd like an EARTH TO KING!
JK (delighted to see you, too, are not a Jasper Gerard fan)...
32 comments:
Arcati, I do admire your art of counterpoint. On one hand you're supporting Mrs Mastini's crusade against sex abuse, and on the other hand you're interviewing complacently a guy who got seven years for illegal sexual relatioships with teenagers.
Oh, but I forgot: the guy is innocent of course – if he says so, why would we doubt his word? The British court is evidently packed with malicious minds. And Madame Arcati, as a self-respecting journalist, is devoted to objectivity. Besides, Mr. King hates Jasper Gerard as much as she does, which redeems him entirely. Silly me! :-)
Oh Lorenzo thank heavens you weren't on the Sally Clark jury, or the Angela Cannings one or... too many to specify. Miscarriages of justice abound in the British courts. More so when it's a good story for the tabloids, nice headlines, easy caricatures.
What is Lorenzo's remedy? Head in the sand, believe the media, consider police honest and judges fair and jurors bright... isn't life wonderful?
I've just seen this and I have to agree with Lorenzo. Madame, what were you thinking????? His defence that "a sixteen year old girl would be allowed to love me but a boy would have to be 21" is ludicrous - the evidence against King was overwhelming and some of these boys were only 12 or 13 when he first got his grubby little hands on them. This man is no better than Randy's father - I remember reading an interview with one of the boys he abused after King was convicted - he was in his late '30's then but still suffering daily as a result of what King did to him. All paedophiles like to fool themselves that their victims "were enjoying/asking for it" - I didn't expect you to be fooled too. No miscarriage of justice here.
> Miscarriages of justice abound in the British courts. More so when it's a good story for the tabloids, nice headlines, easy caricatures.
I agree that the tabloïds don't help. Neither does guilt, I guess. If what Mrs Tamblyn says is true, Mr King may consider himself fortunate that the court accepted to release him after four years. Yes, life is wonderful, indeed. :-)
Here's a contemporary account - still claim you've "never caused problems for anyone" Mr King? Disgusting.
How did King fool so many for so long?
by STEPHEN WRIGHT and BILL MOULAND, Daily Mail - on 22nd November 2001
One of the most influential men in pop was jailed for seven years yesterday for a monstrous reign of perversion.
Jonathan King, hitmaker, top record producer and TV presenter, was convicted of sordid attacks on young boys.
Though only five victims were involved in his trial, police believe hundreds more suffered at his hands over many years.
Last night, with his career shattered and his name disgraced, the burning question was how King was able to fool so many people in showbusiness so successfully that several household names appeared as character witnesses for him.
Sir Tim Rice and discjockey Simon Bates were among those who told the Old Bailey they had always found 56-year-old King totally trustworthy.
But the two-week trial also heard how he lured youngsters to his home on the pretext of seeking their opinions on music.
While he was building the eccentric public image which made him a multi-millionaire, he was also prowling streets and nightclubs trying to pick up boys.
Sometimes they were alone, on other occasions he would brazenly introduce himself in front of a boy's parents.
Some victims were picked up at the Walton Hop disco in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, where police believe other paedophiles also operated.
Once he was alone with the boys, King plied them with drink, showed them pornographic pictures and videos and then forced himself on them.
Afterwards, he would try to buy off his victims with autographed records and books.
The offences came to light only years later, when a victim complained to the police about one of King's friends, a former Radio 1 DJ who has been convicted of child sex offences in the Czech Republic.
The investigation also implicated King. He made the mistake of protesting his innocence on TV - and a string of other victims came forward. In total 22 men formally accused him of abusing them.
King was found guilty at the end of September of four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences against boys aged 14 and 15, committed in the 1980s. But there was a publicity blackout on the case because he still faced further trials on similar charges.
These have now been abandoned, and yesterday King returned to the Old Bailey to be sentenced.
The man who gloried in his Rolls-Royce arrived in a prison van - he has been in Belmarsh Prison, South East London, since the verdict.
The former public schoolboy and Cambridge graduate, charged under his real name of Kenneth George King, looked a shadow of his old self as he stood in the dock between two female security guards. His face had lost its familiar chubbiness and his hair was grey and receding.
Three of his victims were in the public gallery but one of them could not bear to stay in the same room. Within minutes of the hearing starting, he got to his feet, mouthed obscenities at King and left.
King was allowed to sit as his barrister outlined the grim future facing the man who found fame in the 1960s with Everyone's Gone To The Moon, then discovered Genesis and promoted bands such as 10cc and the Bay City Rollers.
Ronald Thwaites QC said King would inevitably become a target for other prisoners now that everyone knew the details of his crimes.
In a reference to disgraced Tories Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken, he added: 'The prospect of an easy time in open prison is not something that is going to be available to him as it has been to other high-profile candidates who have been before this court.'
Mr Thwaites said King had suffered 'a spectacular fall from grace, too late in life for him to be able to expect to recover from it.
'The cult of celebrity will become the curse of his life. Where will he be able to find sanctuary with anonymity? He will never be free of the shame and disgrace of his conviction. It will rob him of professional involvement in his first love, music.
'No one will want to be seen to associate with him in a business which depends on personal contacts.'
But Judge Paget told King his offences were 'aggravated by a serious breach of trust' and all his victims had suffered emotional and psychological damage. He added: 'There will have to be a substantial prison sentence. I bear in mind the great tragedy this case involves for you personally.
'You have had a successful and distinguished career in your chosen field - these incidents apart it may well have been you are an honourable man.
'I have no doubt that the convictions, your loss of good name, difficulties in the future and the inevitable publicity will all be considerable punishment.'
The judge ordered King to pay £14,000 towards prosecution costs, said he would have to be on the sex offenders' register indefinitely and banned him from working with children. It is also unlikely King will ever be allowed to return to the U.S., where he has a second home.
King, who plans to appeal, later had a video message posted on his personal website. Filmed before he was convicted, it attacked 'gross unfairness in the legal system'.
But Detective Inspector Brian Marjoram of Surrey Police said after the hearing: 'We have achieved justice for his victims.
'He had the best defence money could buy. They put these victims through a very harrowing experience. When he was giving evidence, King mocked them. He did not convince the jury and they convicted him.'
The detective who launched the inquiry, Mervyn McFadden of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, said: 'It may take years for allegations to come to light but the public can rest assured that the law will eventually hunt these people down.'
Thank you for the responses. In the interview there is a link to Jon Ronson's lengthy Guardian piece which I think gives a better and balanced view of the case, though King disliked it - as he says in the interview.
There is a big difference between raising awareness of an evil and conducting taboid-style witch hunts, or moral crusades - the main purpose of which is to sell newspapers or exhibit virtue for commercial purposes. Playing to the gallery does no one any good. This ignorant approach merely drives the evil further underground.
The Sun's Rebekah Wade has probably done more to promote paedophilia than any perv on this planet. She and her kind are basically immature meddlers condemned to repeat follies until innocent people get caught in the cross-fire.
As for King, he was convicted and jailed, and that's good enough for me.
I certainly don't propose to hound people to their graves - I would rather relish the opportunity to find out what's going on in people's heads. The gnashing of teeth leaves you toothless.
I'm not surprised by the response, Madame: but it is interesting to see how many apparently intelligent people believe the media in nearly all the stories, unless, of course, it involves them!
The prosecution made a great deal of "12 & 13 year olds". We proved that the four men who had met me were all 15 or very nearly 15 when they met me and that the one who claimed to be 12 could not have been less than 15 or 16 (he claimed I gave him a photo which we proved had been taken almost 3 years later).
I never met him. So how did he get the photo? The police seized several copies when they searched my house. I leave the connection to your intelligent readers.
So, faced with solid evidence of my innocence on 4 of the charges, the prosecution applied to change the dates on the charges - without giving me a single second to discover or present alternative alibis for the new time frames.
I was amazed by this. And I was told it was "standard judicial procedure".
I assumed the Judge would point out to the jury that they had heard not one word of defence for these new charges. He didn't.
I was convicted. On release, I started to try to find proof for the later time frames and found I was in America during one of the periods; a cast iron alibi for one of the convictions.
You cannot assault someone when you're on another continent.
That is just ONE of the aspects of my continuing appeal.
Believe me, the British Justice system is far, far, far from perfect.
I just hope those of your readers who chose to believe it is, never find themselves accused of something, whether it be sexual or terrorism or baby killing or anything else.
Because then they will discover first hand how corrupt and fallible the system is.
And by then it will be too late for them to do anything about it.
Meanwhile the rest of the media will probably continue to ignore flaws in the way the system works.
It's far more comforting.
Okay. On my right, the court and the media, convicting Mr. King. On my left Mr. King claiming he's innocent (though his defense is a bit clumsy, if he allows me this personal parenthesis). Where is the truth ? It's not for me to say. Whether this is a miscarriage of justice, I don't know and I basically don't care. My point is elsewhere.
Robin Tamblyn said :
<< All paedophiles like to fool themselves that their victims "were enjoying/asking for it" >>
IMHO, you're missing the point here.
Firstly, the consent question is a false question. In a paedophilic relationship, the youngest partner is by definition under the age of consent. He may be as consenting as possible (and yes, that happens, no naive angelism please), he's not considered legally responsible for his acts, and he'll still be seen as the legal victim if his parents file a lawsuit against the adult partner. Any psychological or moral justification is irrelevant in this case. Dura lex, sed lex. :-)
Secondly, the adults are supposed to be aware of the law. All the "active" paedophiles know perfectly they are infringing it, and thus should prepare to suffer the consequences of their behaviour if they get caught, whether their "victims" were consenting or not.
Thirdly – and this of course is the most disturbing and irritating point – yes, the laws may change with times and places. Nowadays, in our western countries at least, they are more tolerant than they have ever been regarding sexual matters. Homosexuality is no more an offense, and the age of consent has been lowered "de facto" with the age of legal majority, which both are good things actually. However, there still are limits to sexual freedom. Better take them into account in all circumstances. Mind you, that doesn't mean one mustn't try and improve the law if needed...
Lastly... Well, to be honest, I have to acknowledge that Mr. King's self-justification is understandable to some extent. As a matter of fact (except for the presumption of rape, naturally) the offenses he was put it jail for were not so scandalous to the public opinion in the seventies and even eighties as they are now, even though the laws were more restraining. Curiously the public sensibility about paedophilia has hardened recently, whilst the laws were softening up. It wouldn't be daring to assume that, guilty or not, Mr. King has paradoxically been one of the sacrificial victims of that evolution. His high profile did a disservice to him in that case : his bright example was used to remind the society that there still were limits and laws, although the lines had moved.
Just my two pence. :-)
Rumour has it that your next exclusive will be with demon barber Sweeney Todd. Like you, Madame, I have always assumed Todd to have been unustly maligned and I look forward to what will undoubtedly prove an entertaining account of his peculiar habits. If I may be allowed a little joke of my own, no "porky pies," Mr T.
How about Hannibal the Cannibal?
Hmmm, let's see... Staying in the field of reality, I suggest an interview with Armin Meiwes. That would open an interesting debate about the extension of the "adult consent" notion.
[There is a big difference between raising awareness of an evil and conducting tabloid-style witch hunts, or moral crusades - the main purpose of which is to sell newspapers or exhibit virtue for commercial purposes.]
Ha! Arcati vs the tabs, now! Unbelievable!!!
[As for King, he was convicted and jailed, and that's good enough for me.]
OK, Mr K. has sinned, Mr K. was sentenced to 7 years in jail, after 4 years the court decided he had suffered enough. He's paid for his sins, he deserves forgiveness – provided that he doesn't sin again of course. Leave the poor fellow alone.
[I certainly don't propose to hound people to their graves - I would rather relish the opportunity to find out what's going on in people's heads.]
Arcati, you're wonderful! Sure, it's a lot more fascinating to understand what's going on in a serial killer's mind than to put yourself in the place of the honourable and quiet public persons you gratuitously yet repeatedly slander without knowing them!
Be careful, Madame, your mind stinks. :->
On further reflection - at least King DOES come across in the interview as a smug, self-satisfied lying git. His attitude seems to be as follows: "I'm totally talented and gorgeous and sexy, therefore anyone should be honoured to be granted the privilege of having sex with me, if they happen to be underage that's not my problem, the laws of consent are wrong anyway and I was a big victim of a homophobic witchhunt in the Press and the media blah blah blah." Does he really think he'd have "got off" if he'd plied a 14 year old girl with drink and had sex with her instead? I would suggest Madame interviews one of King's victims next, sound "fair" to you, Jonathan?
Ah Dinu, welcome back from your orchestral manoeuvres. A "serial killer"? Did I miss something, or did you sit on your violin one day and a string twanged where the sun don't shine?
Let's try not to get melodramatic, just because you're still sulking about Kevin Spacey and the non-story of his homosexual exploits with young, hunky men.
Oh, but hang on! The Ghost of Albert Speer appears to me. I ask him: "Would you like to be interviewed by the legendary Arcati, Mr Speer? Tell me, Mr Speer: You did 20 years in Spandau for complicity in the deaths of millions, and then you became a feted, bestselling author after your release - how wonderful was that!? Shall we do an at-home?"
Dinu, please try to keep up with moral proportionality.
Robin (so useful to have a gender free name) says I say...
"I'm totally talented and gorgeous and sexy, therefore anyone should be honoured to be granted the privilege of having sex with me, if they happen to be underage that's not my problem, the laws of consent are wrong anyway and I was a big victim of a homophobic witchhunt in the Press and the media blah blah blah." Does he really think he'd have "got off" if he'd plied a 14 year old girl with drink and had sex with her instead?
He/she clearly knows far more about me than I do myself. That's not what I think at all.
But some obvious corrections - my entire point is clearly NOT that the laws of consent ARE wrong but that they WERE wrong; as a bi sexual male I felt it was absurd that men could not consent at 16 where women could. Especially 25 years ago (the times of my convictions) when I was not a fat, elderly vile pervert but a younger pop star and TV personality in his 30's.
Secondly, oh yes, there was clear homophobia in my case. A man accused of consensual sex with 14 and 15 year old girls a quarter of a century earlier would never have been prosecuted. And certainly not two days before the ages of consent were equalised - because the Court of Human Rights in Europe said they had to be (whilst the UK moral right screamed this was a Buggers Charter).
Thirdly, had I not been a minor celebrity, the investigation would have gone no further (the initial claims from 1970 were abandoned) as there would not have been the media explosion to encourage others to exaggerate, inflate or invent.
Fourth, please remember I am innocent of the convictions and never had any relationship with anyone who was not mature enough to decide they wanted it too. Which didn't stop ANY gay relationship being a serious crime until I was 23 and any with a male under 21 until I lost interest in sex in my 50's!
But fifth, it's far easier to believe the tabloids and run your morality from that base. Why bother with in depth thinking?
For your information, Robin is a she, and yes, she's a hopeless tabloid addict. Which doesn't mean I'm completely convinced of your innocence (see my previous posts).
Nope. Never read them (except for the Mail). I notice that Mr King is avoiding the "plying them with drink" issue...that's illegal too, by the way.
"I used my position as a celebrity. I was famous, I was extremely handsome, I was stunningly talented in every possible way, and that makes me very attractive."
Yeuch.
[A "serial killer"? Did I miss something, or did you sit on your violin one day and a string twanged where the sun don't shine?]
You definitely missed something, my sweet bitch. I was taking "a serial killer" as a general example, out of respect for any existing person who might be recognised, but if you insist, I can as well say “predatory paedophile”, although I’m reluctant to it.
[Let's try not to get melodramatic, just because you're still sulking about Kevin Spacey and the non-story of his homosexual exploits with young, hunky men.]
You’re the one who’s bringing him up – again (such a long time since we heard of him, eh?). But you know quite well it’s not only about that. Besides, I have nothing against “homosexual exploits with young, hunky men”... for good reasons! Unfortunately, that’s not exactly the way you put it at the time. But let’s leave it at that, I think you get me perfectly, and so do those who followed this discussion from the beginning.
[Oh, but hang on! The Ghost of Albert Speer appears to me.]
Albert Speer?! Are you kidding, Madame? Enough interviews with losers and wannabes. We want the Führer himself, in person! ‘Mein Kampf’ still is a big hit among the enemies of Israel, don’t you know?
Talented? Gorgeous? Sexy? Jonathan King? Excuse me, but I just watched some old videos on his site and... OMFG! That guy just looked like a bleating broomstick with spectacles. Pathetic. Keep him if you want and gimme Mick Jagger instead! :-)))
Mick Jagger? Don't you know where he's been?
Never plied anyone with drink - I hardly touch it myself (allergic to alcohol). It's a good (false) line for the prosecution of course. Never did drugs. Don't allow drugs in my house; never have. Don't smoke. Don't allow smoking in my house.
Beautiful, talented, sexy... no, I wouldn't attribute any of those to myself; so little that I think it's funny to say it but you can't hand out senses of humour.
And on a final note; I was there - I'll bet not one single "pop star" from the 60's, 70's, 80's didn't sleep with underage groupies at the time.
As the judge said, when (wrongly) sentencing me for crimes that were never committed, "I accept that no violence, force or coercion of any kind was used"... I stress the word "coercion"... but none of that, of course, makes a good story (especially not in your beloved Mail, Robin).
<< And on a final note; I was there - I'll bet not one single "pop star" from the 60's, 70's, 80's didn't sleep with underage groupies at the time. >>
"Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end"... Remember that goddamn sob song ? O tempora, o mores! :-)
< "Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end" >
Yeah. Hard times for the poor teen idols, nowadays.
you'll give houseroom to anyone who is desperate enough to speak to you, and this finally shows it up.
do you not realise that any fucker in the universe can get an "exclusive" interview with Jonathan King?
>> Beautiful, talented, sexy... no, I wouldn't attribute any of those to myself; so little that I think it's funny to say it but you can't hand out senses of humour.
Nor would I - but I was quoting you - see below. I'll agree with one thing though - you are like Michael Jackson.
Paedophile King told to 'shut up'
Last updated at 08:50am on 30th March 2005
Paedophile pop mogul Jonathan King has been told to "shut up" for the sake of his victims as he continued to protest his innocence after his release from prison.
King, 60, told reporters he had done nothing wrong as he left prison after serving three-and-a-half years of a seven-year sentence for sexually abusing teenage boys.
He insisted people of both genders had found him "extremely attractive" and were never forced to do anything they did not want to.
King claimed his time in custody had been "fantastic" and said he now intends to devote time to help pursue hundreds of miscarriage of justice cases.
His comments have angered Victims of Crime Trust director Norman Brennan who described the disgraced celebrity as a "danger to young boys" whose "perversions" caused revulsion across the nation.
'Revulsion'
Mr Brennan said: "The jury that heard all the evidence were convinced beyond all doubt that he was guilty of all the crimes he was convicted of.
"As far as I'm concerned, he is a thoroughly discredited individual and my advice to him is he is lucky to get out as early as he did for such serious crimes for which many of us believe he should have received a far longer sentence in the first place.
"The only person who believes he is innocent is himself. My advice is: thank your lucky stars you are out as early as you are.
"He is a danger to young boys. His perversions have caused revulsion around the country.
"He used his position of fame and celebrity thinking victims would not come forward and give evidence against him. But he is wrong."
He added: "The best thing for him to do for the sake of his victims brave enough to give evidence is to just shut up."
King was convicted at the Old Bailey in September 2001 of sexually abusing five youngsters aged 13 to 15.
The court heard that the Cambridge-educated impresario lured boys to his mews home in Bayswater, west London, in the 1980s and showed them pornography before assaulting them.
Jailed
He was jailed for seven years in November 2001, but has continued to protest his innocence despite failing in a bid to have his convictions overturned in 2003.
As King left Maidstone Prison in Kent this morning, he said: "I'm innocent of the charges against me. There is no issue of the acts being consensual, there were no acts. However much people try, you can't bend the truth.
"There's no truth in the offences whatsoever. One of the five men I am accused of abusing I have never even met and there is no evidence I ever did meet him."
Review
He confirmed that his legal team are awaiting a judicial review to challenge the Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal.
In a later interview with Five News he claimed there were no victims because everyone he had a relationship with was "of an age and mental maturity" to make their own decisions.
He insisted none of them - male or female - were children or forced to do anything they did not want although some were below the age of consent.
"Half of them were, at the time, illegal because the age of consent either didn't exist or was 21.
"The law was in place, and I knew I was breaking it, and I did, knowingly and conscientiously, however I am not guilty of the convictions against me, I am not guilty of ever going with anyone who didn't want to go with me and I am not guilty of going with children."
Asked if he abused his position as a celebrity, he said: "No, I used my position as a celebrity. I was famous, I was extremely handsome, I was stunningly talented in every possible way, and that makes me very attractive."
He added that he felt "exactly like Michael Jackson, in that he is innocent".
As he travelled into London to meet probation officers, the former Genesis producer claimed life behind bars had been "fascinating".
"It was the most fantastic three-and-a-half years of my life, in prison," he said.
"You meet fascinating people and get to see the other side of the world, one that you never knew existed.
"Like most people, I had the view that once the prison gate slams shut, hell takes place, but the reality couldn't be further from the truth.
"I have had no complaints at all about my time inside, apart from the food at Broadmoor.
"The Prison Service are extremely good, trying to do an almost impossible job. The politicians don't seem to care, but of course, there's no votes in it for them."
King said that in addition to returning to his music career, he will assist charities and groups which help fight wrongful convictions.
"Sally Clark, Angela Cannings, Stephen Downing, these people are just the tip of the iceberg of miscarriages of justice.
"There are thousands of people who don't have legal teams to work for them and just have to lump it."
Oh she WILL believe every word in the media, dear Robin, so trusting.
Every word is accurate.
Every nuance is identified.
Every smile on delivery is reported, every wink and nudge described.
What a lovely, easy life.
Read it, consider it 100% accurate, don't trouble your pretty little head with any depth of thought.
If you check your transcripts, you'll find nobody of 13 was in my convictions, they were 14 and 15 when they met me, and nothing sexual ever happened. One easily discovered inaccuracy (well, what's a year or two between hacks?). I was never in Broadmoor (a mental hospital). My comment was about the food in Belmarsh (well, same first letter - good enough). That's just two blatant, sloppy factual errors. Doesn't it make you wonder? No, I don't suppose it does.
You'll have to accept my apologies then - I've "thought" and "wondered" about it as you suggested and I'm afraid I still think you're a vile pig. Sorry.
Wow, marvellous! Ms Tamblyn has found a new celeb' to hound, a consenting victim this time, a nice fella who agrees to play with her. I know someone who's gonna breathe a huge sigh of relief ;-).
No problem, Robin, feel free to think of me whatever you choose. I'd do the same about you but I know nothing about you and never have uninformed opinions.
Everyone out here knows Robin Tamblyn is a celebrity stalker ans a nutcase.
Post a Comment