Feel free to quote from this site (which I know you visit hourly) but please don't adapt my words to fit your agenda; "destroy the BBC" - anyone reading my post (see Attitudes and Opinions) can see I made no mention of "hundreds of memos" about David Bowie.

The new post-Leveson media behaviour - twist the truth, blur the lines, muddle the quotes to prove your point.

As far as I know there was not a single memo made at the BBC about David Bowie. About "such stars as..." quite possibly. There was a rape allegation in Texas (Google it). There were under age groupie claims in published books (Lori Maddox). But BBC? Nope. Not as far as I know.

As the BBC continued to deal with the fallout from Dame Janet's damning report, convicted paedophile Jonathan King claimed the Corporation had ignored 'hundreds' of memos about David Bowie.

In a sensational allegation, King said the BBC had turned a blind eye to alleged complaints about the musician because he was such a huge star. Writing on his website King of Hits, he argued that Dame Janet's review had missed vital evidence.

He said: 'Dame Janet obviously never read my books. Or examined the hundreds of BBC memos about such stars as the mighty David Bowie - a terrific talent who I knew well, who had sex with many more young people than Blackburn, Savile and the rest of the BBC DJs added together.

'Or did she decide it might be wiser not to mention such stars?'

King, 70, was released from jail in 2005 after serving half of a seven-year sentence. He was convicted of four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences on boys aged 14 and 15, between 1983 and 1989.

He added: 'I wonder whether all the rock and pop stars on the show [Top Of The Pops] who had allegations made against them were asked to give evidence?

'Or were those employees of the BBC regarded as too wealthy? Or did they never misbehave? Were there no groupies?'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3467609...m.html#ixzz41Y356sjk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

My letter to the reporters (and the Editor).


Dear Joseph Curtis and Josh White

As far as I know there was never a single memo about David Bowie at the BBC. About “such stars as…” quite probably, but I don’t even know that; I simply wonder why there was no mention of such stars in Dame Janet’s report. I’m sure the Mail has had thousands of memos about allegations of stars in the many years it was busily promoting them on its pages.

Best wishes



Jonathan King.

cc Paul Dacre - Editor.

lol

I never use that awful thing but I will again..LOL

how mad that you (and me of course) pondered just when the backlash to the David Bowie The Saint Has Died And It Just Cannot Be True would begin.

As for Lori Maddox, well we only have her word for it but she seems delighted to be back in the spotlight even if it is because Bowie is dead & buried..or ashes scattered.

## cue Brush with Fame #99 : I saw David Bowie about 8 years ago in one of the very best restaurants in the entire world : Tetsuyas in Sydney. Tetsuya had invited me to dine finally after numerous encounters in various functions.

I had followed his career as he was the humble sou chef for a great pal of mine & finally opened his own eatery. Lovely Japaneses decor..very simple & traditional with 14 courses..tiny little things on a plate over 2 hours..and my guest ( and me) wondered if we would be hungry after.

The food was the exquisite & and when I asked Tetsuya about Bowie he said.."he comes at least every 6 months..he flies to Bali for a holiday and then jets to Sydney for 2 days just to dine here"

I've searched high and low for any evidence that there have ever been any convictions for being a paedophile - "a person who finds children sexually attractive". Many for those convicted of acting on such impulses but none for anybody simply being such a person. Which, incidentally, I am NOT. Like the Mail - we find children sexually repulsive (though you'd never know it, perusing the past pages of the Mail with seductive pictures of such girls as the young Emma Watson).

JK2006 wrote:
I've searched high and low for any evidence that there have ever been any convictions for being a paedophile - "a person who finds children sexually attractive". Many for those convicted of acting on such impulses but none for anybody simply being such a person.

Good point, JK.

I'm pretty sure there have been convictions in some countries for being a homosexual.

Some of the prosecutions and convictions we are seeing now in the UK are sailing quite close to the heterosexual equivalent.

I suspect even there, in those horrid countries, some of which kill people, it is for "homosexual acts" - not for "being homosexual". And before anyone comments, as far as convictions are concerned, the definition of a child is "A person under 14" in the Children and Young Person's Act of 1933 (never repealed).

Article 107 Part 1 of the Act says - “Child” means a person under the age of fourteen years

So many calls and messages today from friends who noticed the discrepancy between their report and my actual words. Several say they notice this a lot these days - even on radio and TV (remember Dennis Skinner actually correcting a woman live on air?). I think hacks today don't actually hear or read the correct words; they only read or hear what they want the story to be. So if a Labour person says "I love Jeremy Corbyn" the reporter turns to camera and says "as you just heard, she hates Jeremy Corbyn".

JK2006 wrote:
the definition of a child is "A person under 14" in the Children and Young Person's Act of 1933 (never repealed).

Really?

This creates a whacking great contradiction between the definition and some of the section of the SOA2003 doesn't it?

Sexual activity with a child of 14/15 isn't sexual activity with a child then...

I will look into this further.

JK2006 wrote:
So many calls and messages today from friends who noticed the discrepancy between their report and my actual words. Several say they notice this a lot these days - even on radio and TV (remember Dennis Skinner actually correcting a woman live on air?). I think hacks today don't actually hear or read the correct words; they only read or hear what they want the story to be. So if a Labour person says "I love Jeremy Corbyn" the reporter turns to camera and says "as you just heard, she hates Jeremy Corbyn".

not only that..people often prefer the incorrect version to reality and there is no correcting them.

I think the law in the UK has 4 ages of a child. Below 12 is classed as prepubescent so they define below that paedophile activity.
17 and 364 days consenting no images
16 consenting
14 to 16 can consent but illegal.
13 below can't consent at all.

A few of the attempt to meet set ups we caned by judges because of using 13 and below so most set ups use 14 or 15.
I am sure Mark can answer better than I as it was he that started that whole entrapment thing off to prove all these blokes want girls under 14.

When I read the call you a Paedophile along with many others it just shows they are using the word to shock, as I said earlier if someone is convicted based on 12 or below then yes in the eyes of the law the word paedophile could be used BUT it really means solely attracted to prepubescent so again if you had been in relations with over 12s to 100 years old technically your not a defined paedophile.
But it make great headlines

The dictionary definition of a paedophile is "someone who is sexually interested in children". Firstly; that definition clearly includes all people - so a child who is sexually interested in children is - by definition - a paedophile. Secondly; what is a child? You're right MWTW - in law there are many uses of the word which are technically incorrect - for example; anyone (including myself) on the Sex Offender Register is "not allowed to work with children". Children, for that purpose, are generally regarded as under 18; so the absurd situation exists that someone convicted of having sex with someone under 16 is allowed to have sex with a 16 or 17 year old, but not work with them.

Quite simply, a paedophile is not "someone who is sexually interested in young persons".

Broken system; barking mad lunacy; yet politicians don't care (until a Cabinet Minister gets accused - hopefully sooner rather than later).

As posted in another thread...

And so it starts: The Sun has a huge headline saying Tony dated a 14 year old girl. But then in the text it reveals it's a non-story as far as the witchhunters are concerned, but the headline is all they need. Totally cynical.

Denise, now 64 and a gran of three, said: I met him at a place called Rockley Sands.

It used to put on bands. It was a caravan park that my parents used to manage. I was 14 at the time and we got chatting.

But he was the perfect gentleman and he never suggested anything. It was completely innocent.

Former B&B owner Denise did not tell her parents who she was out with for fear her dad would strangle him¯.

She added: I was at school at the time and he was about 20.

I knew he was older because he had a car but I didnt know exactly.

But he didnt know how old I was. Looking back I did look older than 14. I had long black hair and false eyelashes. I used to like older men too and it was a different culture in the 1960s.

Sounds like the paper should change their name now. I suggest the DAILY FAIL!