Arising from the febrile and many comments from the first Precious & Jon:
Interesting how people don't read carefully ... poor saps.
At no stage have I claimed that Precious Williams has made up her relationship with Jon Snow.
What I said is that she has to date failed to prove it. Whether she proves it is another question. Anyone can claim to be an "MoS insider" - welcome to Hoaxers' Paradise.
And as for Mr Curious ... read Mr Spurious.
Now, carry on with the show ...
32 comments:
Yes. Yes, of course. Anyone who disagrees with Madame's ludicrous statements must automatically be a hoaxer. Or spurious. Is Madame losing her marbles?
My marbles perhaps are rolling after yours, my medicated friend.
Ho ho, Madame is moderating the comments now. Stormy weather, indeed.
Yes indeed. It would appear that a one too many staff at Associated Newspapers - perhaps under the influence of prescription drugs - is attempting to damage this site by posting highly defamatory comments about each other's sexual activities. So sadly comments will have to be moderated until the squall of vitriol passes.
<< highly defamatory comments about each other's sexual activities >>
And you're shocked ? Gee, I'm stunned !
I've been doing news shifts at the MoS for over 5 years, so I think that qualifies me to call myself MoS Insider. I didn't work on the Snow story but I've talked about it with the staff who did; I've heard almost every details of it.
However, I haven't heard this stuff Madame says was being posted about the sex lives of Associated staff. I didn't realize any MoS staffers actually had sex lives.
Pray tell, Madame.
Thank you MoS insider, you may be for real: certainly I have received a couple of emails on this matter that rang true, but in the absence of evidence they made this site vulnerable to litigation.
It's over to Precious to put up the evidence or shut up.
Madame Arcati is, in many ways, my idol. I hope the recent threat(s) of legal action won't make her censor her wonderful site in any way.
"It's over to Precious to put up the evidence or shut up."
To be fair, Precious seems to have been very quiet on the subject, so why does she need to 'shut up'?
She can do as she pleases - she's been quiet for two or three days and this is a good thing - either she's listening to her lawyers or she's decided on a retreat.
I mean, put up and prove or shut up permanently on the subject. She only damages herself further by making assertions she cannot support with evidence - but that of course could change ...
Thank you Capn Berserk, the moderation is regrettable but the internet - like everywhere else - has its quota of morons and drunks who make plainly malicious and defamatory allegations. I don't believe in wasting energy.
But I shall not be censoring wild and crazed attacks on my person, or allegations of exotic sexual activity or speculations on my actual identity (if any).
So, in practice this site will not alter.
>>Arcati said...
She can do as she pleases - she's been quiet for two or three days and this is a good thing - either she's listening to her lawyers or she's decided on a retreat.
I mean, put up and prove or shut up permanently on the subject. She only damages herself further by making assertions she cannot support with evidence - but that of course could change ... <<
I don't know about being quiet for two or three days Precious doesn't appear to have spoken out publicly at all, save for a couple of vague comments on this very site where she doesn't mention whether she had an affair with Snow or not. She hardly seems to be screaming about it from the rooftops. I doubt she has damaged herself as you say at all. I never heard of her before but now I find her endearing.
What seems so unfair, but typical, about this debacle is that Jon Snow doesn't have to prove he didn't sleep with her.
I hope Precious sues Arcati for defamation.
What, sue for me saying she has yet to prove the relationship? That's a statement of the obvious - you slack-brained dribbler. When she's proved it, I'll be among the first to publicise it.
It's all in the implications (of what you're saying.) I'm willing to bet good money that the next installment in this story is a writ from Williams's lawyer.
The woman does not appear to have made any assertions on this site (other than that she is suing the Mail on Sunday) or elsewhere in the public domain on whether the Mail on Sunday allegations about her having an affair with Snow are true.
Even her two or three postings on this site earlier this week were inconsequential and did not point the finger at Snow.
I have to say that I think Arcati is way out of line on this one.
"the moderation is regrettable but the internet - like everywhere else - has its quota of morons and drunks who make plainly malicious and defamatory allegations. I don't believe in wasting energy."
Yet that's exactly what you're doing almost every day since the very minute you started this blog. But naturally, none of your own allegations is "malicious and defamatory", and thus they don't need to be moderated.
Any minute now some of you will be asserting Precious never claimed to have had a relationship with Snow.
May I point out that Precious used Arcati to make a statement of intent about suing the MoS for defamation (although I think she meant the Daily Mail - I have a reason for thinking this) - see posting at http://madamearcati.blogspot.com/2007/06/precious-williams-makes-statement.html.
Precious has never claimed that the MoS made up her words about a relationship with Snow. She has never retracted or denied the meaning of these words - either on this site, or to other journalists I know she's spoken to.
What she says is that the paper (the MoS) did not have her permission to publish because of a confidentiality agreement with it. That's a very different matter. The MoS claims that it could not resist Snow's legal threats because she refused to provide evidence (presumably because she felt the paper was in breach of contract, or for some other reason).
Quite a few people need to familiarise themselves with the details of this saga - though I doubt they would wish to. They are too lazy.
And as for Daughter Of A Bitch - how wonderful for you to slip in, as you do on any topic under the sun, with all the substance of a fly's fart.
Jiz says "What seems so unfair, but typical, about this debacle is that Jon Snow doesn't have to prove he didn't sleep with her."
How would Snow go about trying to prove a negative? The MoS/Precious Williams made the claim: the onus is on them to prove it. Snow is "innocent" till proven otherwise. The MoS has withdrawn, so it's down to Precious. Otherwise this goes down as a fake kiss 'n' tell with all the consequential damage to reputation you can imagine.
<< Quite a few people need to familiarise themselves with the details of this saga - though I doubt they would wish to. They are too lazy. >>
Or maybe they're just deadly bored ? This horse is dead, Arcati. Let's give him a decent burial.
Oh no, we have some way to go yet. Keep on your wigs, babies.
The MoS did breach its confidentiality agreement with Williams.
The PCC received a complaint from Williams stating that quotes attributed to her in the two articles in question were fabricated. I don't think Williams is even commenting on whether she had an affair with Snow, or not; I think she's saying she didn't say most of what's attributed to her in the Mail on Sunday.
My honest opinion is that all three parties have behaved in a toxic way. Williams kissed and told. Snow brazenly lied. The Mail on Sunday, as they are want to do, exaggerated and behaved in a generally underhand way. Then Williams switched sides and supported Snow who continues to pretend he doesn't know Williams. Almost costing a couple of MoS execs their jobs.
Nice work guys.
"Otherwise this goes down as a fake kiss 'n' tell with all the consequential damage to reputation you can imagine."
Perhaps not. A literary scout friend tells me Williams' latest offering has inspired a bidding war and is being touted as "a satirical novel about a tabloid reporter, a kiss and tell story gone wrong and a string of Fleet Street murders"
Really? ... perhaps Madame Arcati will be added to this promising satire as the Miss Marplish detective.
Daily Express: Hickey: June 20:
FROM the horse's mouth: while Channel 4 anchorman Jon Snow has won a retraction from a Sunday newspaper over untrue claims that he had an affair and smoked cannabis with a writer called Precious Williams, he went even further in his denial of the matter to Hickey.
"I have never even met the woman, " the poor chap spluttered indignantly at Tina Brown's book launch.
" Anonymous said...
Daily Express: Hickey: June 20:
FROM the horse's mouth: while Channel 4 anchorman Jon Snow has won a retraction from a Sunday newspaper over untrue claims that he had an affair and smoked cannabis with a writer called Precious Williams, he went even further in his denial of the matter to Hickey.
'I have never even met the woman,' the poor chap spluttered indignantly at Tina Brown's book launch."
Sure you haven't Jon. Sure you haven't.
I dated a very famous, married chap a while ago.
He told me that if I sold the story to the press or if his wife or kids ever found out about me, he would tell anyone who'd listen that he'd never met me and that he had no idea why I was making up lies about him.
This conversation prompted me to end our relationship.
I didn't go to the papers; not out of loyalty to him but because I know people would believe the word of an acclaimed household name and that I'd probably be branded a liar.
x Katie
I don't know whether or not Ms Williams had a relationship with Mr Snow. Maybe she did. Maybe she didn't. I don't care. It is you Madame who goes on and on and on. And on. And on about this boring saga. Not Ms Williams.
There are so many important things going on in the world. Whether Jon did or didn't shag Precious is not one of them!
WE DON'T CARE.
Precious says she has not made anything up.
In which case I suggest she sues the pants off Associated Newspapers for damaging her reputation by making an apology.
But Associated wouldn't have had to publish the apology if Precious had been nicer to them and helped them back up their story! Really everyone comes out of this fiasco rather soiled, including the far-from-squeaky-clean Mr Snow.
Do we know of anyone (else) who's dabbled inside Snow's pants? Would be interesting to know whether rumours about his trousersnake antics are at all accurate.
I'm a jaded hack with the Daily Mail, the People and the Mirror on my CV. Been in the biz 11 years. In all that time never even heard of a kiss and tell which doesn't have an ounce of truth to it. I've heard of embellished "tell-alls" of course and I think this is probably the case with the Jon Snow/Precious Williams story. I know from my work at Associated that the Mail on Sunday would not have published the story (not once but twice!) without corroboration. Simple as that. Story wouldn't have made it into the paper even once without some corroborative evidence having been seen, or heard.
That said I think the blame lies with the Mail on Sunday for not having demanded substantial enough evidence prior to running the two articles. That's their call. Williams cannot be blamed for that error in judgement.
I hear through the grapevine that the evidence obtained by the MoS consisted of emails btw the 2 parties and tip-offs from individuals who had no connection to Williams and therefore probably no ulterior motive. In most instances, this would be enough to support the articles. In this case not in no small part I think because the paper hadn't a hope in hell of standing up the drug allegations made against poor old Snow.
Anyhoo, no smoke without fire, I say. I believe the piece was a highly embellished kiss and tell (ie based on fact but exaggerated quite a bit to make it sexier) and so do many others in the industry.
But this is of course my opinion and not Madame Arcati's opinion.
Post a Comment