That looks like a non-denial denial to me. 'Not recognizing' something is not the same as denying categorically that the dialogue ever took place.

He might have been so pissed at the time that he doesn't remember.

He's only saying he doesn't recognise the transcript... but unless he saw one in the first place, why should he? Doesn't show that it didn't happen, and a year in the life of a PE editor would blur the details of non-broadcast dialogue, etc.

Johnny Rotten can't remeber most of the Winterland gig. But it all happened.

You sound like you want it to be true!


Yeah, me too.

Where's the real audio recording of the sound track, eh?

Surely the person who made that transcript could sort it out...

I'd love to hear it. If it's real, then Merton is the reincarnation of Peter Cook. It's like Derek and Clive. Superb!

Yeah! If the transcript is true, it shows that what we see of Merton on screen is but the tip of a massive pile of boiling spite. How much better would his TV series have been if the Saville version of Merton had done it, rather than the oh-look-it's-a-dolphin-I'm-being-surreal Merton...

The HIGNFY outtake upped my estimation of Paul M boundlessly. No wonder the media cognoscenti said that Louis Theroux let Sir Jimmy off lightly in his (otherwise excellent) documentary...

Odd that they gave him the Room 101 gig...

Here's hoping that he's presenting the Queen Mum birthday coverage... "here comes the senile old slapper now... look at those tits... like fried eggs..."

Actually I thought he did an excellent job on Room 101. Didn't just do a Hancock and spew out ten minutes of weak pre-written material every time his guest opened their fucking mouth.

How come Hancock's getting such an easy ride on this forum, by the way?

I don't know. Personally I'd like to push my willy in his ear.

Damn right. I'd like to push your willy in his ear too.

>How come Hancock's getting such an easy ride on this forum, by the way?

Because its a forum about comedy, no relevance to Hancock.

I saw that last message first, and thought you were blaspheming against Saint Tony. Lucky I looked further back before releasing a torrent of abuse...

Hancock's got an new series on BBC one - suposedly similar to This is your Life, but 'funny'. Sounds like a good idea. there can never be enough programmes which are like 'something', but funny. No, honestly.

But he's dead isn't he? How can he have a new series?

Animatronics - this is the '00's you know. They just stick his face on sombody whose not very famous or funny - like Nick Hancock.

'Justaaace'

Back on topic - on today's update of Bubblegun (www.bubblegun.com) is the following:

NAME THAT CELEB
13 July

+++ Which celebrity guest on BBC2's Have I Got News For You bravely grinned and bared it when regulars Paul Merton and Ian Hislop confronted him over rumours that he was a secret paedophile? In fact, Merton was so disgusted at being on the same team as this un-named guest that he threatened to walk out. The floor manager and host Angus Deaton � who insisted Merton apologise (he didn't � he instead called the guest �A dirty old cunt who likes underage girls�) � tried in vain to keep the show afloat. But who is the guest in question?

Anyone going to own up?

I asked Bubblegun about it - they said they'd downloaded it themselves. They also said that "We have it on fairly good
authority via our TV industry contacts, that it is genuine. Allegedly."

Also this week, top scurrilous pop e-mail zine 'popbitch' has mailed the whole transcript to its entire subscription list (I received it in my mailbox this morning). Incidentally, 'popbitch' is worth a look anyway, as they're gleefully exploiting the fact that e-mail libel laws are still in their infancy by printing all the gutter pop star gossip that no-one would dare to print - www.popbitch.com if you're interested.

This Saville thing is gathering momentum... how long before it bursts out of the e-mail circuit and into public consciousness?

Yeah, it's starting to pop up here and there already.. makes you wonder how much stuff was hidden away before email.

Bleedin' shocking, by the way.

It certainly is - after e-mailing it to several people on this forum I received it back from a mate who works for Time Out - it's definitely 'doing the rounds'.

But why didn't someone in the studio audience put it out shortly after it happened?

I still believe in it though. The lines just SOUND right.

bloody hell... i've just read the transcript and i think Jon's right - the lines sound like what merton and saville would actually say. of course, it could just be a hoax by a very, very clever person...

And still the media frenzy continues... From today's NTK (www.ntk.net - under Anti-News):
-
no, JIMMY SAVILLE Have I Got News For You "transcript" cannot be "for real"
-
Do they have evidence to the contrary?

Jimmy Saville is a very close friend of our Website, and would never respond in that way to such barbs.

love,

d.

>Yeah, it's starting to pop up here and there already.. makes you wonder how much stuff was hidden away before email.
maybe its because of e-mail that more stories like this get made up.
> Incidentally, 'popbitch' is worth a look anyway, as they're gleefully exploiting the fact
that e-mail libel laws are still in their infancy

i dont want to come over all establishmentarian but what if , just maybe, saville isnt guilty of this and the transcript is made up. wont we all feel like total cunts for a) (re-)igniting the rumour and b) believing it.

Given the amount of wankers who write hoax virus warnings as chain letters, maybe some of them are turning their hand to a kind of "incredibly gossipable rumour" chain letter , just to see how far it travels.
This may become an urban legend in years to come.

I was just playing devil's advocate back there btw, does anyone have any bright ideas about how we can find out for sure if said outburst actually happened?
who was that girl mentioned by Ian ( i didnt save it when i read it - but no doubt I'll get the opportunity soon) do we know anymore about that yet? It sounded like ian was referring to a specific accusation previously levelled at jimmy. or maybe he was joking to give that effect.

"I was just playing devil's advocate back there btw, does anyone have any bright ideas about how we can find out for sure if said outburst actually happened?"

Well, I mailed Rob S asking him if he knew if The Corpses had the rushes or had seen them. The style of the transcript is similar to other things in SOTCAA, suggesting they prepared it themselves.

Rob S didn't reply. Why don't we all mail him, then he can't ignore us?

>Rob S didn't reply. Why don't we all mail him, then he can't ignore us?

He has been noticeably quiet on this topic. It's quite possible that, as someone else has suggested, the Corpses want to protect their source; equally, they may be concerned about being named in any future legal action. However it could be argued that they maybe should have thought of that before they posted the thing on their website and, as a bonus, had the sheer chutzpah to claim copyright for it. The words "heat" and "kitchen"...

The original link to the trans-thingy wasn't posted by Rob, it was done anonymously
and the post said:
'I'm not sure I should say, as Rob could get red and angry.
Oh well.'
That link was to an area on the site where Rob/Corpses store stuff
not for public consumption - I'm guessing, but it was in an area called hidden - ie you won't find a published link to it on the website, you'll have to know it's there.
The link setup on geocities was also posted anonymously, probably by the same person as the orignal anon post.

MM

Ok what a crock of shite, the 'hidden' part of the original link was reference to
the hidden archive section of the site, but it still wasn't published on the page.
I think I'll just shut me hole.

MM

No MM, I think you were right first time. If you look at the URLs, the actual articles in the hidden archive section do not contain a reference to "hidden" e.g:
http://mudhole.spodnet.uk.com/~frogger/corpses/update1/12ronnies.html

So I think the "hidden" in the original transcript URL probably referred to the fact that it was actually supposed to have been hidden.
"Anonymous", the person who originally posted the URL has since (apparently) posted to the "Saville - The Truth" thread and said they found the article due to Rob Sedgebeer's habit of commenting out links to articles not yet ready for publication. So this person must have been reading the source code of the web pages. To pick up HTML tips, or because they were involved with the production of the site in some way?
Also, in IE 5.0, when I right-click on the hidden archive page (to, for example, view the source) I get a "Menu Unavailable" message. This is the ONLY section index page that displays this behaviour. Coincidence? Or something more sinister? Like Rob S. trying to stop us finding more "hidden" links?
Does anyone happen to have the "hidden archive" page pre-Saville-transcript-revelation cached somewhere? I can't seem to get it off Google.

> To pick up HTML tips, or because they were involved with the production of the site in some way?

Nope, I found it because I'm nosy. I have no link with the creators of this site.

As I've written previously, I did mention it to Rob in a thread ages ago, but he chose to leave the file still available, and didn't change the page. I took this to mean he wasn't too bothered.

Rob has also set up some Javascript to prevent you popping up the menu and reading the source. This doesn't stop you saving it to disk, of course.