It's not my normal practice to comment on newspaper diary stories. But rules are meant to be broken. So I offer my congratulations to C4 news anchor Jon Snow on his marriage, as reported by Richard Kay in the Mail today. His wife is called Precious, a name that may ring alarm bells in some. But fear not. This one is Dr Precious Lunga, 35, a Cambridge scholar 27 years his junior.
Those with a memory (long or short) will recall that another Precious once claimed to be part of Mr Snow's life. Alas, this proved not to be the case.
Still, perhaps we'll learn more when this gets published on August 2. Or perhaps not.
Showing posts with label Jon Snow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Snow. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Martin Amis: His eyeballs and Yasmin's reply
Did you see Martin Amis on Jon Snow’s C4 news show last night? The voice has been smoke-cured into a wonderful, neutral rumble, decidedly unfruity in all weathers. His eyeballs said more, shooting this side and that like tennis balls in a bad-tempered knock-up at each lacerating question: if he had shot them heavenwards we might have thought him camp, but Amis is a rapid sideways glancer and is one of the uncampest men of his generation. He was in Snow’s dock over his recent remarks on Islam – see another posting here for the catch-up: he had admitted to momentary racist urges in the wake of 9/11 and other outrages by al Qaeda types: the admission was the salve, that alone would undo the damage of his foolhardy confession, he’d hoped. I suspect Amis has misjudged the broad-sweep nature of public perception. As I write it’s not possible to be a bit racist but not seriously (even though that probably sums up about 80% of us).
In any case his subtleties are lost on columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to whom he wrote the letter condemning his critic Prof. Terry Eagleton. She replies to him in today’s Standard, calling the letter “part affectionate” but “somewhat patronising”. She takes the simpler view that “racism is not an involuntary seizure”. And even if there is the odd urge to racism, “you can train yourself out of it.” She then foolishly cites Boris Johnson as an example – she bets he won’t be using the word “piccaninny” during the London mayoral campaign. “He will become a better man for that restraint.” The difference here is that while Johnson is a racist but is just keeping his public trap shut for PR purposes, Amis is just a bit of a racist who is uncommonly open about it. The hypocritical racist versus the slightly-racist blabbermouth: Whom to prefer? What a choice!
On another matter I learn Deborah Kerr has just died. She had a lovely speaking voice and she ruined many of my Sunday afternoons with re-runs of her fucking The King and I. Still, I blame the feet-up and tea-drinking schedulers.
In any case his subtleties are lost on columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to whom he wrote the letter condemning his critic Prof. Terry Eagleton. She replies to him in today’s Standard, calling the letter “part affectionate” but “somewhat patronising”. She takes the simpler view that “racism is not an involuntary seizure”. And even if there is the odd urge to racism, “you can train yourself out of it.” She then foolishly cites Boris Johnson as an example – she bets he won’t be using the word “piccaninny” during the London mayoral campaign. “He will become a better man for that restraint.” The difference here is that while Johnson is a racist but is just keeping his public trap shut for PR purposes, Amis is just a bit of a racist who is uncommonly open about it. The hypocritical racist versus the slightly-racist blabbermouth: Whom to prefer? What a choice!
On another matter I learn Deborah Kerr has just died. She had a lovely speaking voice and she ruined many of my Sunday afternoons with re-runs of her fucking The King and I. Still, I blame the feet-up and tea-drinking schedulers.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Independent on Sunday: Arcati plots
From The Spectator in the Independent on Sunday for today:
"When the 'Mail on Sunday' ran an erroneous story alleging an affair between Channel 4 News's Jon Snow and writer Precious Williams, Madame Arcati, the mysterious media and celebrity blog, became a hotbed for gossip. Until, that is, Snow's lawyers called time on the allegations. Now comes news that somebody has been trying to unmask Mme Arcati. She writes: "I know one newspaper at least which paid an intermediary to obtain a blogger's identity by illegal means, and I know that this person is probing Arcati."She also reports that AOL told her of attempts to access her email with the wrong password. We accept the denial by the 'MoS' of any involvement. So speculation must turn to other media groups."
"When the 'Mail on Sunday' ran an erroneous story alleging an affair between Channel 4 News's Jon Snow and writer Precious Williams, Madame Arcati, the mysterious media and celebrity blog, became a hotbed for gossip. Until, that is, Snow's lawyers called time on the allegations. Now comes news that somebody has been trying to unmask Mme Arcati. She writes: "I know one newspaper at least which paid an intermediary to obtain a blogger's identity by illegal means, and I know that this person is probing Arcati."She also reports that AOL told her of attempts to access her email with the wrong password. We accept the denial by the 'MoS' of any involvement. So speculation must turn to other media groups."
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Precious Williams: A Berlin encounter
A man enters a Berlin bar; he espies a beautiful woman called Precious Williams ... and decides to try his luck, for Queen and Madame Arcati ...
(The author of this piece - Kishan - has now left a comment)
Thought you might be interested to know that I bumped into none other than Precious Williams at the weekend, in a charming little vodka bar [in Berlin] where they claim to serve 42 flavous of vodka.
Of course I grilled her about Jon Snow and her newfound infamy.
Did you make it up? I asked. Did the Mail on Sunday make it all up? Is Jon Snow making stuff up?
Precious rolled her eyes at me and said: "Are you sure you don't have anything a little more interesting to talk about?"
I said: "I'm just curious, that's all. Can I buy you a drink?"
She said: No.
Later she actually bought me a drink. Some sort of Cosmo made with freshly blended imported Russian berries that she raved about.
I talked to her for about three-quarters of an hour. My motivation in hanging around was two-fold: I wanted to find out what really happened (if anything) between her and Snow and to be frank I also wanted to see if I could pull her.
I found her quite hot in real life and quite fancied her: a lot prettier than the pictures of her in the paper. Perhaps most importantly, she was wearing a skirt (or dress) so short that at one point I briefly saw her knickers (they were purple). Two very long caramel brown legs were displayed to their full advantage. I don't know about Jon Snow, but I wouldn't kick that out of bed.
All I could get out of her on the Jon Snow business was the following:
"I fucking despair of the fucking state of British newspapers. Don't they have anything meaningful to write about?"
We talked about all the non-important stories the papers print these days.
She said, "I spent nearly ten years poking my nose in other people's private lives and writing about it. Even when a PR banned me from asking an interviewee questions about his sex life, I'd still ask, because my editors made me. I was involved in a tabloid interview once with Max Beesley where we promised him copy approval and then totally reneged on our contract. What goes around comes around for sure. I'm seeing that."
I asked her if she'd ever had an affair with an A-list celebrity as opposed to the rather C-list Snow.
"Yes," she said. "But my mouth is zipped about it."
I asked: Was it with somebody you interviewed?
"It was. I used to have his poster on my wall when I was a teenager. He's a rapper. That's all you're getting from me."
I asked: Is it true you have a book deal for a memoir about you and Snow?
She quipped, "Were you sent to talk to me by the Mail on Sunday or something?"
I asked: Are you familiar with Madame Arcati?
"Oh my God!" she screamed. "You're not Madame Arcati are you? Prove you're not her!"
She looked genuinely afraid.
"If you are Arcati," she said (she pronounced it Arr-Catty. Is that correct pronunciation?), "please, please stop writing about me. I'm just an ordinary person trying to mind my own business."
Sadly despite our fairly lengthy and at times flirty chat, I couldn't get Precious to fuck me or even give me her phone number. Possibly because she was in the company of a handsome but menacing-looking Russian chap who said very little but made it clear with his facial expressions that he'd break my legs if I didn't back off.
However, Precious did buy me the aforementioned fancy drink which cost 9 euros.
"Even if you are Madame Arcati", she said as she left the bar, "I hope you have a really nice time in Berlin."
Arcati is pronounced "Ah-car-tee
Friday, June 29, 2007
Time Out: 'Madame Arcati is our website of the week'
An anonymous person informs me that Time Out magazine has paid tribute to Madame Arcati with its "website of the week" accolade, in terms that meet with my approval ... I reprint on trust ...
"Madame Arcati (named after the eccentric medium in Noel Coward's 'Blithe Spirit') calls herself a 'showbiz and media clairvoyante'. The tone of her notably - some might say revealingly - witty and well-written blog recalls pop gossip newsletter Popbitch, but the thrust of her revelations is generally literary. She was first with the news of the sobbing and wine-throwing that ensued when Indie hack John Walsh made the fatal error of inviting both his long-term partner and his mistress to the launch of his first novel.
"An attentive observer of the baffling Jon Snow/Precious Williams non-affair, she currently has her knife stuck into Diana's latest biographer, Tina Brown: 'She has a reputation for a modish, magpie use of shiny word-finds, as if the employment of the latest now-word or phrase shifts her into the symphonic moment ... ' Me-oww!"
"Madame Arcati (named after the eccentric medium in Noel Coward's 'Blithe Spirit') calls herself a 'showbiz and media clairvoyante'. The tone of her notably - some might say revealingly - witty and well-written blog recalls pop gossip newsletter Popbitch, but the thrust of her revelations is generally literary. She was first with the news of the sobbing and wine-throwing that ensued when Indie hack John Walsh made the fatal error of inviting both his long-term partner and his mistress to the launch of his first novel.
"An attentive observer of the baffling Jon Snow/Precious Williams non-affair, she currently has her knife stuck into Diana's latest biographer, Tina Brown: 'She has a reputation for a modish, magpie use of shiny word-finds, as if the employment of the latest now-word or phrase shifts her into the symphonic moment ... ' Me-oww!"
Friday, June 22, 2007
Precious & Jon Part Deux: Use your brains, people
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 ...
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 ...
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Precious & Jon: I give up (for now)
Some of you doubtless will be relieved to learn that I have given up on Precious Williams (for now).
Attempts to find any tangible evidence for her claim that she had a relationship with Jon Snow have come to nothing. Emails have passed between us, some of my questions have been ignored, and now she tells me that she can’t trust anyone to report her words accurately. This is a very odd thing to say when one considers that she’s a highly experienced and gifted journalist – one would think she has a voice of her own. And Arcati made itself available to her if actual evidence - as opposed to fervent claims - was furnished.
Recently someone made another claim to me: that Precious Williams and Jon Snow met at a London hotel last week. Some details were outlined, but no tangible evidence was sent. My presumption was (and is) that this was yet another hoax. I emailed Precious with the question: Did you meet with Snow at a London hotel last week? In her reply she ignored the question and simply stated that she had been in London last week and attended a number of meetings before returning to Germany where she currently lives. She did not mention Snow. Why would she reply in this fashion? Why not simply deny it if she had not met him?
I then emailed Jon Snow and asked him: Did you meet with Precious Williams at a London hotel last week? He replied by email: “Madame, so far as I am able to tell, I have never met her and had no awareness of her existence, I think that has been made clear in the reporting thus far and has been accepted by the MOS, best wishes, JS”.
I am probably not alone in thinking this a very oddly worded response, and its meaning lies in an implication. He is not aware of her existence (so presumably he could not have met her in a hotel last week); his formula “so far as I can tell” carries another implication: that his unawareness of her existence is contingent on an ability to tell. I don’t know why he didn’t just say categorically: “I did not meet this woman at a London hotel last week”.
However, his response is in effect a denial and one that must be accepted in the absence of supporting evidence. Jon Snow "does not know a lady called Precious Williams", as his lawyer has asserted.
Now, back to Precious. Yesterday I asked by email again whether she had met Snow at the London hotel. In one of her replies she stated that she did not know what I was talking about and asked me to explain. This in itself was a curious response - could she have forgotten so soon this business of the hotel? So I asked the question again. This time she told me that she could not trust anyone to report her accurately.
I shall not speculate on Precious’ state of mind, her credibility or motives in this bizarre saga except to say that she assured me that she had evidence of this relationship, that a broadsheet was examining it – and I’ve heard nothing since. And that’s where we are.
In the absence of this evidence one must tender sympathy to Jon Snow - and for other reasons, to Precious Williams.
Other Snow/Williams postings - read all about it!
Attempts to find any tangible evidence for her claim that she had a relationship with Jon Snow have come to nothing. Emails have passed between us, some of my questions have been ignored, and now she tells me that she can’t trust anyone to report her words accurately. This is a very odd thing to say when one considers that she’s a highly experienced and gifted journalist – one would think she has a voice of her own. And Arcati made itself available to her if actual evidence - as opposed to fervent claims - was furnished.
Recently someone made another claim to me: that Precious Williams and Jon Snow met at a London hotel last week. Some details were outlined, but no tangible evidence was sent. My presumption was (and is) that this was yet another hoax. I emailed Precious with the question: Did you meet with Snow at a London hotel last week? In her reply she ignored the question and simply stated that she had been in London last week and attended a number of meetings before returning to Germany where she currently lives. She did not mention Snow. Why would she reply in this fashion? Why not simply deny it if she had not met him?
I then emailed Jon Snow and asked him: Did you meet with Precious Williams at a London hotel last week? He replied by email: “Madame, so far as I am able to tell, I have never met her and had no awareness of her existence, I think that has been made clear in the reporting thus far and has been accepted by the MOS, best wishes, JS”.
I am probably not alone in thinking this a very oddly worded response, and its meaning lies in an implication. He is not aware of her existence (so presumably he could not have met her in a hotel last week); his formula “so far as I can tell” carries another implication: that his unawareness of her existence is contingent on an ability to tell. I don’t know why he didn’t just say categorically: “I did not meet this woman at a London hotel last week”.
However, his response is in effect a denial and one that must be accepted in the absence of supporting evidence. Jon Snow "does not know a lady called Precious Williams", as his lawyer has asserted.
Now, back to Precious. Yesterday I asked by email again whether she had met Snow at the London hotel. In one of her replies she stated that she did not know what I was talking about and asked me to explain. This in itself was a curious response - could she have forgotten so soon this business of the hotel? So I asked the question again. This time she told me that she could not trust anyone to report her accurately.
I shall not speculate on Precious’ state of mind, her credibility or motives in this bizarre saga except to say that she assured me that she had evidence of this relationship, that a broadsheet was examining it – and I’ve heard nothing since. And that’s where we are.
In the absence of this evidence one must tender sympathy to Jon Snow - and for other reasons, to Precious Williams.
Other Snow/Williams postings - read all about it!
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Independent on Sunday note on Arcati/Williams/Snow
The Independent on Sunday's Spectator column for June 17 records the following on Precious Williams, Jon Snow and Madame Arcati:
"JON SNOW'S lawyers are keeping busy. Fresh from winning an outright retraction from The Mail on Sunday over erroneous claims of a relationship with Precious Williams, Snow has turned to cyberspace. Madame Arcati, self-styled media clairvoyant, has received a letter asking her to remove two "defamatory" articles from her blog. Matters won't have been helped by Ms Williams channelling her side of the story through Mme Arcati. Over at the MoS, more obfuscation over who was to blame. One name conspicuously absent is that of Peter Wright. Even in Monday's Media Guardian feature on Snow, the MoS editor did not make an appearance. MoS Kremlinologists are wondering who spoke to The Guardian."
The story continues ... a report of a meeting last week in a London hotel reaches my ears involving certain individuals not unconnected to the saga ... I refuse to say more for the moment. The truth will out.
"JON SNOW'S lawyers are keeping busy. Fresh from winning an outright retraction from The Mail on Sunday over erroneous claims of a relationship with Precious Williams, Snow has turned to cyberspace. Madame Arcati, self-styled media clairvoyant, has received a letter asking her to remove two "defamatory" articles from her blog. Matters won't have been helped by Ms Williams channelling her side of the story through Mme Arcati. Over at the MoS, more obfuscation over who was to blame. One name conspicuously absent is that of Peter Wright. Even in Monday's Media Guardian feature on Snow, the MoS editor did not make an appearance. MoS Kremlinologists are wondering who spoke to The Guardian."
The story continues ... a report of a meeting last week in a London hotel reaches my ears involving certain individuals not unconnected to the saga ... I refuse to say more for the moment. The truth will out.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Precious Williams and 'vicious rumours'
Someone called "Simon Kelner's Nemesis" - Kelner is the bunny-eating editor of the Independent [click here] - has sent two items on Precious Williams:
1
There has been some talk here (generated by Nick Pyke no doubt) of the Sindy "declining to renew Williams's contract" back when she worked for them. All bullshit. I worked with Williams in 2000 and I know for a fact that she left the Sindy of her own volition before her contract was even up for renewal. I'm sure a call to Sindy HR would confirm this.
Although I enjoyed working with Williams I actually encouraged her to leave, because she was being treated like shit at the paper. I am one of a handful of ex-Sindy staff (of course the Sindy no longer really has staff, we're all exes) who have recently heard from Williams out of the blue asking precisely what Nick Pyke's problem is and how long he has been spreading stories about her. At first I thought she was being paranoid but now I am seeing where she was coming from with her questions. Williams has always seemed a very nice girl, if slightly wild on the drugs and dress sense front. Have always considered her quite fetching to look at.
2
I've asked around, because I am curious. Williams has (according to cuts and general gossip) written for the FT, the Telegraph, the Times, Sunday Times, the Express, the Mail on Sunday, the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the Guardian, the Indie, the Sindy, the Big Issue and "most women's magazines".
I couldn't find a single account of anyone trying to sue any of those publications over features written by Williams. I heard of a complaint where an interview[ee] didn't like what had been written about him and complained that Williams "had seemed such a sweet girl". I heard of another complaint from a celebrity who claimed Williams had embellished his quotes but then promptly withdrew his complaint when he remembered that the interview had been taped. Nothing else concrete. Weird how rumours spread, isn't it?
This reminds me of the vicious, hateful things I've heard said about the black 3Am girl, Eva Simpson. Although there are rumours flowing that Simpson is talentless, an air-head, embellishes stories and so on, in reality she is a hard-working, talented and unassuming lass. So's Williams in my experience.
1
There has been some talk here (generated by Nick Pyke no doubt) of the Sindy "declining to renew Williams's contract" back when she worked for them. All bullshit. I worked with Williams in 2000 and I know for a fact that she left the Sindy of her own volition before her contract was even up for renewal. I'm sure a call to Sindy HR would confirm this.
Although I enjoyed working with Williams I actually encouraged her to leave, because she was being treated like shit at the paper. I am one of a handful of ex-Sindy staff (of course the Sindy no longer really has staff, we're all exes) who have recently heard from Williams out of the blue asking precisely what Nick Pyke's problem is and how long he has been spreading stories about her. At first I thought she was being paranoid but now I am seeing where she was coming from with her questions. Williams has always seemed a very nice girl, if slightly wild on the drugs and dress sense front. Have always considered her quite fetching to look at.
2
I've asked around, because I am curious. Williams has (according to cuts and general gossip) written for the FT, the Telegraph, the Times, Sunday Times, the Express, the Mail on Sunday, the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the Guardian, the Indie, the Sindy, the Big Issue and "most women's magazines".
I couldn't find a single account of anyone trying to sue any of those publications over features written by Williams. I heard of a complaint where an interview[ee] didn't like what had been written about him and complained that Williams "had seemed such a sweet girl". I heard of another complaint from a celebrity who claimed Williams had embellished his quotes but then promptly withdrew his complaint when he remembered that the interview had been taped. Nothing else concrete. Weird how rumours spread, isn't it?
This reminds me of the vicious, hateful things I've heard said about the black 3Am girl, Eva Simpson. Although there are rumours flowing that Simpson is talentless, an air-head, embellishes stories and so on, in reality she is a hard-working, talented and unassuming lass. So's Williams in my experience.
Jon Snow threatens legal action against Arcati
Jon Snow's legal reps have written to Arcati demanding the removal of two "defamatory" items on this blog which arose from a report in the Mail on Sunday about his relationship with writer Precious Williams. Snow's solicitors claim he had no relationship with her - in fact they say that Snow does not know "any lady called Precious Williams." Snow's principal concern is to "protect his reputation".
As a gesture of good faith I have taken down the contentious articles they complain of but I shall continue to delve into this matter which makes little sense from beginning to end.
As a gesture of good faith I have taken down the contentious articles they complain of but I shall continue to delve into this matter which makes little sense from beginning to end.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Precious Williams writes to Donald Trelford ...
Precious Williams has emailed to say the letter below is a hoax, but it does reflect her anger at Trelford's Independent piece. I'll keep this posting up for now; plainly mischief is afoot. Precious has written a substantial letter to me but I shall not put it up until or unless she gives me the go-ahead ...
Yet more astounding comments on the Jon Snow/Precious Williams fandango - some more credible than others it must be said. One in particular appears to be a letter from Precious Williams to Donald Trelford who wrote a plainly misrepresentative piece yesterday in the Indie (not the Guardian). Now, if this letter is a hoax, perhaps Precious could email me privately ...
donald.trelford@independent.co.uk
Subject: Indpendent article
Date: Jun 11, 2007 10:37 AM
Dear Mr Trelford
I was astounded by your piece in today's Guardian [it was in the Independent! - ed]. How ironic that a story purporting to be about the ways in which the Mail on Sunday got a story so wrong could itself be so incredibly wrong!
I spoke to Phil Hall this morning and he is adamant that you have taken everything he said out of context. Phil Hall is not and has never been my agent. How could you possibly write a balanced account without even attempting to contact me and ask for my account of events? You have presented "facts" about me that you have made no effort to confront me with. At best this is shoddy journalism but I think it goes further. I consider it libel and in not bothering to even confront me prior to publishing the piece, you appear to have had a very clear agenda.
Precious Williams
The next comment is plainly a hoax, but Donald Trelford is invited to email me privately if he wishes to say anything ...
Don Trelford said... I'm big enough to admit that I got yesterday's story in the Indy wrong. I was misled by several MoS sources, and Phil Hall kept changing his story.
Yeah, right ... and finally for now, an anon comment: it would be helpful to know where or to whom Hall's comments were made ...
Phil Hall is claiming that he never was Williams's agent and that they have a mutual friend in common and he was giving free advice only to Williams. According to Hall, Trelford has grossly misrepresented him and the embarrassment Hall talks about is embarrassment at how the MoS has acted only. Hall also allegedly commented that he's pissed off because Snow will likely not invite him onto Channel Four news again in the foreseeable future. Hall's claiming he did not broker a deal for Williams and that there in fact was no deal at all and that Williams sounded dangerously un-clued up in her phone conversation with him.....
Yet more astounding comments on the Jon Snow/Precious Williams fandango - some more credible than others it must be said. One in particular appears to be a letter from Precious Williams to Donald Trelford who wrote a plainly misrepresentative piece yesterday in the Indie (not the Guardian). Now, if this letter is a hoax, perhaps Precious could email me privately ...
donald.trelford@independent.co.uk
Subject: Indpendent article
Date: Jun 11, 2007 10:37 AM
Dear Mr Trelford
I was astounded by your piece in today's Guardian [it was in the Independent! - ed]. How ironic that a story purporting to be about the ways in which the Mail on Sunday got a story so wrong could itself be so incredibly wrong!
I spoke to Phil Hall this morning and he is adamant that you have taken everything he said out of context. Phil Hall is not and has never been my agent. How could you possibly write a balanced account without even attempting to contact me and ask for my account of events? You have presented "facts" about me that you have made no effort to confront me with. At best this is shoddy journalism but I think it goes further. I consider it libel and in not bothering to even confront me prior to publishing the piece, you appear to have had a very clear agenda.
Precious Williams
The next comment is plainly a hoax, but Donald Trelford is invited to email me privately if he wishes to say anything ...
Don Trelford said... I'm big enough to admit that I got yesterday's story in the Indy wrong. I was misled by several MoS sources, and Phil Hall kept changing his story.
Yeah, right ... and finally for now, an anon comment: it would be helpful to know where or to whom Hall's comments were made ...
Phil Hall is claiming that he never was Williams's agent and that they have a mutual friend in common and he was giving free advice only to Williams. According to Hall, Trelford has grossly misrepresented him and the embarrassment Hall talks about is embarrassment at how the MoS has acted only. Hall also allegedly commented that he's pissed off because Snow will likely not invite him onto Channel Four news again in the foreseeable future. Hall's claiming he did not broker a deal for Williams and that there in fact was no deal at all and that Williams sounded dangerously un-clued up in her phone conversation with him.....
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Precious Williams makes a statement
Statement to Madame Arcati by Precious Williams
I can confirm that I am pursuing a defamation claim against the Mail on Sunday.
I can also confirm that the Mail on Sunday approached me regarding this story, and not vice versa. The paper approached me following tip-offs which their news editor claims he received from reliable sources. A reporter from the paper arrived out of the blue at my home in Berlin several days before the first of the articles ran. I did not agree to do an interview. The paper ran a story on me on 20th May regardless. No money exchanged hands.
The Mail on Sunday was forced to issue an apology to Jon Snow because the paper could not prove that Snow "smoked and inhaled" cannabis, as was claimed.
I am not a member of staff at the Mail on Sunday, nor have I ever been. The Mail on Sunday has published around 35 of my articles over the years, mainly lengthy interviews with celebrities. Legal action has never been brought against the paper by any of the subjects I have interviewed and the Mail on Sunday has never had to publish a retraction as a result of anything I have produced for them.
I am neither seeking publicity. While the Mail on Sunday is correct in saying that I have written a memoir, the book is about my childhood, does not feature Jon Snow and is not published until next year.
I can confirm that I am pursuing a defamation claim against the Mail on Sunday.
I can also confirm that the Mail on Sunday approached me regarding this story, and not vice versa. The paper approached me following tip-offs which their news editor claims he received from reliable sources. A reporter from the paper arrived out of the blue at my home in Berlin several days before the first of the articles ran. I did not agree to do an interview. The paper ran a story on me on 20th May regardless. No money exchanged hands.
The Mail on Sunday was forced to issue an apology to Jon Snow because the paper could not prove that Snow "smoked and inhaled" cannabis, as was claimed.
I am not a member of staff at the Mail on Sunday, nor have I ever been. The Mail on Sunday has published around 35 of my articles over the years, mainly lengthy interviews with celebrities. Legal action has never been brought against the paper by any of the subjects I have interviewed and the Mail on Sunday has never had to publish a retraction as a result of anything I have produced for them.
I am neither seeking publicity. While the Mail on Sunday is correct in saying that I have written a memoir, the book is about my childhood, does not feature Jon Snow and is not published until next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)