The story the British tabloids won't touch

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/17/1095394011418.html

The article rather teasingly doesn't say exactly what this story the tabs won't touch actually is. Does anyone know?

― fred shed, Friday, 17 September 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Share with the class, then... ;-)

― Danger Whore (kate), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

wait, Prince Charles didn't bugger some manservant again?

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

The Herald has been approached several times about buying the "scoop" that the British papers have been too gutless to run.

It may be a sad comment on the standing of the Australian press that some people think it would run a story that - you will have to take my word for it - breaches the bounds of privacy and media responsibility.

?? This seems a rather self-contradictory stance.

I don't know what the story is. I'm out of the loop these days.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

My (educated) guess is that Cherie has been having an affair with MC Hammer.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Damn, Alba. nail on the head!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Who is Fred Shed? You guys know I hate divulging on threads when I do not know who is asking.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i've heard lots of people talking about it - it's sort of a semi-open secret isn't it?

i've seen threads about this on other messageboards disappear, btw.

― pete b. (pete b.), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

The link to the news article now requires log in, FWIW, and it didn't a few minutes ago. Weird.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

The press is being nice about this story because to report it WOULD fuck up a blameless individual.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

WHAT IS THE GODDAMN STORY, PEOPLE?! COUGH IT UP!

― Tonight at ten (kenan), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm curious but now i don't know whether i want to know.

oh i do.

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I would be so excited if this thread disappeared in mysterious circumstances. The idea that MI5 operatives are lurking on ILE is too wonderful.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I am trying to think of blameless individuals (other than MC Hammer) and my mind is drawing a blank.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

My only worry now is that I have set my exectations for kinkiness and scandal way too high. What if it's one of those things that's only scandalous to the British?

― Tonight at ten (kenan), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i bet there's at least one active poster who is really an MI5 operative

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, that would be me, AND WE KNOW ALL ABOUT YOU, KEN C.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

HI DERE

― who could it be? (pete b.), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

pashmina you're just the decoy. a real operative wouldn't admit to that.

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

oh no but maybe you're double-bluffing!!!

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, after about three minutes of searching on Google, I found the story. I think it's best not repeated here as it involves a totally innocent person; if you want to find it, it's not difficult. Moderators, please feel free to kill this thread.

― fred shed, Friday, 17 September 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

gimme a search term to use on google plz (we mi5 ops are a bit behind these days!!)

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Nobody in #10 is gay, or having affairs, or being dishonest in a tabloid way, or anything like that. The thing I *can* tell you is that a certain EB is doing internship at the Times and is a wanker in my-daddy-this, my-daddy-that style. But that is still not the other thing.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

That's bizarre - ten minutes ago I could read the SMH story - not it requires me to register. SINISTER.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

oh jesus i just found the story via google too - the people reporting this are just horrible.

― pete b. (pete b.), Friday, 17 September 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe it just went past some cutoff time in oz and the story went pay for?

― Ed (dali), Friday, 17 September 2004 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

That's what they want you to think, Ed.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 17 September 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

uk indymedia's coverage of this (by t0ny g0sling) is fucking appalling.

― jones (actual), Friday, 17 September 2004 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not suprised they won't touch it

― Ed (dali), Friday, 17 September 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, now that I know what it is, I feel gross. That's not juicy or titillating, it's just none of my fucking business.

― Tonight at ten (kenan), Friday, 17 September 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

alright, i now need to know this.

― anthony, Friday, 17 September 2004 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

hint: it's not sexy at all. Not even scandalous. It's really sad.

― Tonight at ten (kenan), Friday, 17 September 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

sad upset sad or sad uncool sad?

― cºzen (Cozen), Friday, 17 September 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm totally lost.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 September 2004 17:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay wait now I sort of get it. I'm still not clear exactly what "it" is though.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 September 2004 17:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Upset sad.

I guess people are going to keep looking until they find it anyway. Search on his daughter's name - Kathryn.

It's not that I wish I didn't know, it's just, I don't know. Jones's remark about t0ny g0sling is quite right - I came across some of his postings about it. Is he some kind of psychopath?

I've actually been crying about this. It's weird.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 17 September 2004 17:33 (twenty-one years ago)

But yeah - FWIW, I'd be happy for this thread to be deleted.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 17 September 2004 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay NOW I get it. Jeez, I'm impressed the UK press is being so discreet. They always come off as such maniacs in Mystery episodes.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 September 2004 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Eh, that's quite horrible, and sad isn't it? Alba OTM about t0ny g0sling.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm pleased that the British tabloids are avoiding this story. T0ny G0sling is a knobber judging by his article. Innocent kids shouldn't be used as political footballs no matter what your opinions of their dad's policies are.

― fractal (fractal), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

anyone linked w/ the bilderberg organizations should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Lauren, explain? I know about the Group but what has it got to do with this?

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

if it's the same t0ny g0sling (and i'm assuming it is), then he's all over their site.

― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

i would think if he is linked to bilderberg it would be as a chicken-little if anything

― jones (actual), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i.e. it's his conspiracy site you've found not theirs

― jones (actual), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

he has a homepage through the bilderberg site.

― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Who or what are Bilderberg?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

lauren i don't think the bilderberg group have a website!!

― jones (actual), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:51 (twenty-one years ago)

ok, i know what i'm looking at and why i'm confused. but still, it's creepy.

― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

it can be tough keeping abreast of various international crackpot conspiracy folks in the information age.

― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 17 September 2004 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

i know! i just make the "cuckoo" finger-around-the-ear gesture at every article on the internet and 4 out of 5 times i wind up looking reasonably savvy.

― jones (actual), Friday, 17 September 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)

fuck you, tony g0sl1ng.

― Michael Stuchbery (Mikey Bidness), Friday, 17 September 2004 23:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Who the fuck would even consider that faintly newsworthy?

― mouse (mouse), Saturday, 18 September 2004 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the logic (if you can call it that) is that her father is faring pretty badly, so it afffected her mood severely. It's the dirtiest politics I can think of.

― Tonight at ten (kenan), Saturday, 18 September 2004 00:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I object to Tony Blair using D Notices to hush this up, though. This story is not a matter of national security.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Saturday, 18 September 2004 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

It is a difficult call. Considering that the press here is self-regulating and that publication of the story would be instant ammo for people who want proper privacy laws - for usually frivolous velvet-ropes reasons, nothing like this - and waiting for PCC censure would add to distress significantly and achieve nothing because the intent is for this item not to reach the public domain at all. As to the use of D Notices, I would imagine a scramble for whatever would work, fast (Tory press/tabloids are fast and avaricious and seem quite happy to provoke) complicated by no good fit with existing statutes.

― suzy (suzy), Saturday, 18 September 2004 08:31 (twenty-one years ago)

On the other hand, it provides context to Lord Bragg's comments last week which seemed otherwise a sympathy-seeking fluff piece. I actually think this story in the open would boost the ratings of the father in question. I can understand why he wants it covered up, but I could see it workingto his advantage.

(A cynic might suggest he's "covering it up" to the point where he has to admit it, so he can turn round and say that he was trying to keep it quiet out of fatherly concern, and so that people wouldn't accuse him of trying to make political mileage out of it - by which time he would probably in the best of all positions. An extreme cynic might suggest that's been his intended tactic from the beginning. Good job I am neither, isn't it.)

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Saturday, 18 September 2004 08:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd heard this story a few months back and almost started a thread about it, then thought better of it. At the time I heard it the word was that Blair was actually ready to resign, Number 10 was on the phone to Andrew Marr trying to make it look like a triumphant leaving of office rather than a defeat etc etc.

I ended up discussing this with a couple of other people who post here and we ended up dismissing the whole thing as scurrilous, especially as it was compounded by speculation over Blair's likely successors and their own skeletons. Recent political maneuverings have led me to doubt that even more. Equally, in recent months the assumption within the press seemed to be that he was staying, the knives were really out in a way they wouldn't have been if they knew he was going. The knives would have been out for potential successors instead.

Suzy OTM in saying that widely publicising this would really fuck up the life of someone who at present no one would even recognise if she walked down the street, despite her position. It also means they would be likely go right out and do it again, and possibly succeed this time.

I think this accounts for Blair's "heart scare" a few months back, of which we have heard absolutely nothing since. It seems a credible enough coverup for why he would suddenly have to rush to a hospital.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Saturday, 18 September 2004 09:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, the Blairs have never used their children as election props, beyond a vague 'family man' image and the occasional holiday photo. Especially in comparison to, say, the Clintons. The idea of Blair using this in any way for political mileage seems very unlikely.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Saturday, 18 September 2004 09:15 (twenty-one years ago)

for once i agree with suzy. personally, i wish this hadn't come out here and this thread aint really helping matters. sssshh, people.

― stelfox, Saturday, 18 September 2004 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Aldo's comments, however cynical he is being, are seriously creepy and hopefully wrong. I also think there are too many hints here that make it clear what has allegedly(?) gone on, and I think there's little point to this thread continuing.

― ailsa (ailsa), Saturday, 18 September 2004 13:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Agreed. I'll put something on the moderator thread asking for deletion.

FWIW - I'd like to think nobody could be as manipulative as I hypothesised. But you never know.

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Saturday, 18 September 2004 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

why are we deleting this ?

― anthony, Saturday, 18 September 2004 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

From the FAQ:

If we think a thread might be libellous it might be deleted. This hasn't happened very often.

I think intruding on an innocent person's right to privacy in respect of a matter which appears to have been deliberately kept out of the public eye (whether that's to protect them, or because there's nothing to tell, is neither here nor there) is wrong. It might not legally be defined as libellous (I'm no expert), but it's still a gross invasion of privacy.

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 19 September 2004 06:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think there is anything close to libellous here, though I would say that it's incrementally narrowed things down, and we should NOT pin the story down more here, or I think it will all have to be deleted.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 19 September 2004 10:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I do think Aldo (as he admits is overly cynical and I have no time for creeps like T0ny G()sling. Nevertheless, there are serious issues raised by this. To take just one, Ailsa says:

Let's not delude ourselves. The main reason why the Press has been silent on this is not to do with the accuracy of the story, a desire to protect the innocent, or even the fear of the consequences in court. It is far more to do with a cold calculation of how its own interests are best served. There is nothing here that even the most rabidly Tory commentator could be confident of presenting in a way that will not engender more sympathy for the Blairs than condemnation, so there is no certainty of furthering a political objective by printing the story. More important, there is the fear of a government becoming so hostile to the Press that a clampdown on Press freedom becomes likely.

If this had happened in another newsworthy family how likely is it that the Press would have shown similar restraint? The answer is, it depends: ilxers can amuse themselves by considering the likelihood of the story being suppressed if the story had concerned the Royal Family, or a newspaper proprietor's family or an actor in a soap, etc etc.

The basic point is that there IS no right to privacy in this country for most people. Only privacy legislation could achieve that. And the person who will determine whether there is such legislation, at present, is Tony Blair. As things stand he will not enact such legislation, because he is frightened of the Press hostility that would result. But he might if pushed too far.

Frankly, this stinks. By leaning on the Press, Blair is using his power a level of protection for his own family that is not available to other citizens. Worse, it is part of a Faustian pact with the Press: if the Press voluntarily allow his family a degree of protection not available to other families, then he in return will not interfere with their rights to invade the privacy of those families. Of course I am not suggesting that any formal arrangement is in place, but I am sure that is how the Press understands the situation.

― frankiemachine, Sunday, 19 September 2004 10:34 (twenty-one years ago)

To make it clear, I'm not against discussing the machinations of the press, any crisis in Blair's personal or private or public life or anything like that. I just don't want this thread to be a place where a truly personal story relating to an innocent person, not exactly in the public eye, comes out into the public domain and it's heading close to that just now. At the moment it's tittle-tattle, but if true then it could cause a lot of unnecessary heartache for a lot of people when the rumours start sweeping.

But I'm a wishy washy liberal who just isn't cynical enough, so what the hell do I know, eh?

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 19 September 2004 10:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Sometimes I wonder if social freedom and progress is worth it if people are just gooing to use it as an excuse to be ugly assholes.

Then I remember that being an ugly asshole is fun.

Then I cry. And laugh.

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Sunday, 19 September 2004 11:37 (twenty-one years ago)

You darling man.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 19 September 2004 12:26 (twenty-one years ago)

As I said on the moderator thread, I don't think that this thread meets our defintion for deletion based on what's been revealed here. I also have to say that my reading of the thread so far has been, more or less:

1) JUICY GOSSIP OMG OMG
2) WHAT IS IT TELL US TELL US????!1
3) Here's the way to find out for yourself!
4) WAH WE DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH WE WERE ASKING! KILL IT! KILL IT!

I understand all of these urges so I'm saying that more for comedic effect than to condemn anyone, but you know, the point's there: if you don't want to know what it is, you probably shouldn't go digging for it.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Sunday, 19 September 2004 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

i think that's about right too but perhaps de-googlability is in order?

― jones (actual), Sunday, 19 September 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I actually de-Googled it wayyyy up the thread, just to be safe.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Sunday, 19 September 2004 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

i still have no idea what this story is about, and neither do i have any desire beyond a mild curiosity to find out. but yeah, the british press isn't sitting on this story out of fear, wisdom or kind heartedness, because it simply doesn't have these qualities.

― stevie (stevie), Sunday, 19 September 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

It might not be entirely the suggested calculation, in that publishing this story might disgust a large section of the general public too. They don't want to either lose readers or risk the public's taste for celeb revelations to be dented. I do accept that breaching privacy in such an unjustifiable way would be asking for legal trouble too, which I think is what will actually stop them.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 19 September 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Ailsa for avoidance of doubt I understood what you were saying and had no intention of criticising it. Unfortunately I think that any hope that this story can be suppressed is a forlorn one: someone will almost certainly break ranks and the rest of the Press will feel free to pile in. I'm not saying Martin is wrong, but I suspect his is optimistic. The law has no real teeth, and sensation sells newspapers.

― frankiemachine, Sunday, 19 September 2004 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Can you please de-g00gle the name Alba suggested to search on, just to be sure?

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 19 September 2004 17:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe you should delete google as well in case someone who doesn't want to find out is accidentally led to search for the story by this thread?

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Sunday, 19 September 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, just delete the identifier completely.

Nobody would want to be seen to be responsible for breaking such a story, as the end result would certainly end up in actual press restrictions in LAW not PCC "self-regulation", and who'd want the blame for that? My hope is that they will leave the individual alone.

Editors have to make judgement calls on stories like this ALL THE TIME, not just this time.

― suzy (suzy), Sunday, 19 September 2004 17:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think there is the need really, since he didn't couple it with a surname.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 19 September 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, I was over-reacting. Its been here long enough that anyone who wants to know can know where to look.

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 19 September 2004 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

DELETE ILX

― why do old people and old users of ILX such bastardos (deangulberry), Sunday, 19 September 2004 20:10 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.