Is Paul Williams the worst Irish journalist ever ?

Dundalk Daily

Mistakenly picked up a copy of his latest book in a friends house over the weekend for a quick scan. Jesus this guy is poor, complete rubbish he writes. As for his weekly rants in that rag. What I cant understand is how shows like the Late Late take him on as some kind of expert on Iirish crime, its usually embarassing to listen to him. Strange how there usually is a bomb hoax at his home in the run up to him launching a book mmmm. Whats your views on him ?

santosubito

Paul Williams* has every right to be considered an expert on crime: he's the only crime reporter I know who is actually a qualified criminologist, for example.
Also, you might think his latest book is crap, but read The General. That, in my opinion, is the seminal Irish crime book. It was a fantastic piece of work.It really set an example to anyone else trying to write crime books here.
He is a great reporter and a huge brand. Has been a bit quiet for a few years, but still does the business when he needs/wants to.
And, as far as I recall, there has only been one bomb hoax at his house, carried out by a well known scumbag from Crumlin.
You may also be interested to know that the same scumbag threatened to kidnap his kids.
And you may also be unaware of the plot, by a nut called PJ Judge, to kidnap, rape and murder Williams.






*I'm not him and I don't work with him. I know him slightly, however.

mike65

Cheap shot about that bomb, what if had'nt been a hoax?

Mike.

parasite

he undermines his reporting with all his 'this guy is the scummiest of all scumbags, he's a proper piece of shit, wouldn't piss on him if he's on fire etc..' talk, just report the facts

santosubito

Fine, but he has faced serious risks to his life and those of his family for his reporting. I think he should be respected, at least, for that.

Huggles

Dundalk Daily wrote:

Mistakenly picked up a copy of his latest book in a friends house over the weekend for a quick scan. Jesus this guy is poor, complete rubbish he writes. As for his weekly rants in that rag. What I cant understand is how shows like the Late Late take him on as some kind of expert on Iirish crime, its usually embarassing to listen to him. Strange how there usually is a bomb hoax at his home in the run up to him launching a book mmmm. Whats your views on him ?

That bomb hoax was two years ago??!?

Your opinion of him is rather irrational tbh.

Don't think much of his reporting, he glamourises scumbags by blowing their 'hard man' image up and giving them nicknames, just massages these guys egos.
Also gets basic stuff wrong, example in yesterday's article about Mulhall murder he wrote about Tynan Park North in Tallaght WTF? I presume he meant Tymon North Park? Basic stuff, lazy reporting.

Dundalk Daily

I agree with the nickname thing they have glamed up these guys with these "cool" names to get around libel laws. His reporting is amongst the lowest of the low in my opinion in many cases he is down there with those he is reporting on. Im not defending the criminals he writes about but when you stoop to there levels with gutter journalism you are asking for trouble in my opinion. There are ways and means of exposing someone through the press this is evident from reporting in the more "respected" newspapers. When you get nasty and publish lies about criminals families how "his daughter is a prostitute or heroin addict" or how his wife is having a "lesbian affair with the monks great granny who is in a wheelchair" then you are asking for trouble and Williams and others are somewhat putting their families in danger. As a so called expert on these criminals he should know what their capabilities are, how low they will go.

mike65

I do think he enjoys the whiff of danger, maybe he thinks that if his life had taken a slightly different course he could be like them.

Mike.

santosubito

Dundalk Daily wrote:

When you get nasty and publish lies about criminals families how "his daughter is a prostitute or heroin addict" or how his wife is having a "lesbian affair with the monks great granny who is in a wheelchair" then you are asking for trouble and Williams and others are somewhat putting their families in danger. As a so called expert on these criminals he should know what their capabilities are, how low they will go.

Well, can you back that up and say what lies Williams has published, please?

Acid_Violet

Question; Does Paul Williams write for a Tabloid?

Answer; Yes.

Game, set and match.

DublinWriter

Deleted User wrote:

I presume he meant Tymon North Park? Basic stuff, lazy reporting.

Unlike Veronica Guerin, he doesn't 'hit the streets' and most, if not all of his stories appear courtesy of the Garda Press Office.

Does anyone ever remember him writing anything about the whole Richie Barron fiasco? How curious.

Who can blame him for playing it safe considering what happened to poor old Veronica.

Acid_Violet

DublinWriter wrote:

Unlike Veronica Guerin, he doesn't 'hit the streets' and most, if not all of his stories appear courtesy of the Garda Press Office.

And it is a well known fact to anyone with contacts in the Gardaí that usually they don't like giving him imformation because he distorts it to suit Joe Blogg, the criminals know what the Gardaí know which gives the criminals an edge in court and his 'articles' stir up public opinion and the defense barristers simply argue 'this trial can't be held fairly because of what is said in xyz' and the jury is dismissed and eventually the criminal is never convicted.

santosubito

Acid_Violet wrote:

Question; Does Paul Williams write for a Tabloid?

Answer; Yes.

Game, set and match.

What sort of nonsense is this? What's your point? Just because somebody works for a tabloid they're not to be trusted? Tell that to Liam Reid of the Irish Times, who used to work for the Sunday World.

santosubito

Acid_Violet wrote:

And it is a well known fact to anyone with contacts in the Gardaí that usually they don't like giving him imformation because he distorts it to suit Joe Blogg, the criminals know what the Gardaí know which gives the criminals an edge in court and his 'articles' stir up public opinion and the defense barristers simply argue 'this trial can't be held fairly because of what is said in xyz' and the jury is dismissed and eventually the criminal is never convicted.

More nonsense again. I'm always wary of sentences starting `it is a well known fact' - they're usually not founded in fact. So do you have any facts to prove your claim that Williams' actions have led to any criminal cases collapsing?

Then it would be game, set and match;)

Also, for someone to whom gardai usually don't like touting, he seems to do rather well in that department.

CiaranC

The guy is a sanctimonious tabloid hack who glamourises and then exploits criminality to enrich himself.

flogen

Just to remind people of the Golden Rule in these kinds of the discussions; play the ball, not the man.
That applies to users here and individuals, including those not actively participating in this discussion.
If you've got a comment to make in defence or otherwise of a journalist please keep it in the realm of their professional abilities and skills and not their personality.

This is directed at no-one and everyone; I'm keeping a close eye on this thread and will lock it if it gets out of hand.

agentkarl06

I was reading a post about paul williams being rubbish and I had to reply , I am coming from an angle where I know a lot about what he writes about so you are going to have to read between the line as to what I do ,

Every scum bag he has wrote about he has got it spot on, most of you people do not realise that this town has serious problems with these gangs and thugs and paul williams has exposed most of these people to the irish public which previously has never been done.

you guys have to realise that most of the guys mentioned in his articles are drinking in most of the pubs and clubs we do, only 2 weeks ago that scum from Ballyfermot who is well known in dublin was drinking outside a popular and well known venue in down , if your still confused check the evening herald two days ago

this guy is a total nasty piece of work , and would not think twice about attacking people for no reason and lets say you were drunk enough to put it up to him not knowing who he was , you might as well get out of the country because these huds are serious scum who take things to the next level and jail is playground for these guys.

Point being with these guys being exposed , they wont take as much chances in public to do what they usally do, and if people identify them they can basically avoid them like the plague

I have read most of paul williams stuff and he is exceptional for the brave work he does day in day out , dublin at the moment is at breaking point and the law does not give the gardai enough power to nail these guys.

it going to get a lot worse also , and expect more shooting in light of the recent drug haul , if there was no paul williams exposing these guys to the public , I can guarantee you people dublin would be twice as dangerous as it is already

Dundalk Daily

"I have read most of paul williams stuff and he is exceptional for the brave work he does day in day out" How brave does one have to be to write a story about someone from a distance. Would he be brave enough to confront some of these individuals, now I agree that this would be completely foolish with some of these scumbags but even "harmless or moderate" criminals he wouldnt confront face to face.

CiaranC

Yeah, thank god we have the sunday world to protect us

Chucky the tree

agentkarl06 wrote:

if there was no paul williams exposing these guys to the public , I can guarantee you people dublin would be twice as dangerous as it is already

hahahahaha, classic stuff paul, keep it up!

jdivision

Paul Williams is certainly not the worst journalist out there, for a start the Tribune has on occasion written articles borrowed heavily from his books. I don't even think he's the worst crime journalist: I believe that's Paul "The Gardai did a great job again" Reynolds

Dundalk Daily

Has Paul Williams worked with any other newspapers in the past does anyone know ?

eamon234

Don't be silly. Everyone knows Fiona Looney is the worst journalist ever!

Dundalk Daily

Who does she work for ?

lostexpectation

agentkarl06 wrote:

I was reading a post about paul williams being rubbish and I had to reply , I am coming from an angle where I know a lot about what he writes about so you are going to have to read between the line as to what I do ,

Every scum bag he has wrote about he has got it spot on, most of you people do not realise that this town has serious problems with these gangs and thugs and paul williams has exposed most of these people to the irish public which previously has never been done.

you guys have to realise that most of the guys mentioned in his articles are drinking in most of the pubs and clubs we do, only 2 weeks ago that scum from Ballyfermot who is well known in dublin was drinking outside a popular and well known venue in down , if your still confused check the evening herald two days ago

he was drinking outside a pub wow!

it going to get a lot worse also , and expect more shooting in light of the recent drug haul , if there was no paul williams exposing these guys to the public , I can guarantee you people dublin would be twice as dangerous as it is already

but he a tabloid hack he may be a qualified criminologist but he always be a tabloid hack,I do't if he spends all his days writing about crime, he makes **** up and tabloid hacks by definition make things worse not better.

santosubito

lostexpectation wrote:

he was drinking outside a pub wow!



but he a tabloid hack he may be a qualified criminologist but he always be a tabloid hack,I do't if he spends all his days writing about crime, he makes **** up and tabloid hacks by definition make things worse not better.

Very good. Now back that up. What does he make up?

lostexpectation

santosubito wrote:

Very good. Now back that up. What does he make up?

he tabloid as tabloid can be, do you dispute that, that means concocting things, exagerrating, copy and pasting gardai info for their purposes.


I don't buy tabloids so i know very little of his crime reporting. he wrote a piece how the shinners hijacked the rossport campaign which was straight out of the tabloid grudge populist perfect storm concoction.


sanbutio oh I remember you , you were the know it all journalist!

santosubito

lostexpectation wrote:

he tabloid as tabloid can be, do you dispute that, that means concocting things, exagerrating, copy and pasting gardai info for their purposes.


I don't buy tabloids so i know very little of his crime reporting. he wrote a piece how the shinners hijacked the rossport campaign which was straight out of the tabloid grudge populist perfect storm concoction.


sanbutio oh I remember you , you were the know it all journalist!

It's nice that you remember me. But I wouldn't call myself a know it all, at all, at all. But I do now that making claims about someone without being able to back them up is not the wisest thing to do.

There are some fine tabloid reporters and there are some ****e ones. There are some fine broadsheet reporters, and there are some ****e ones. There are some fine TV reporters and there are some ****e ones. It's up to each reporter to decide how they conduct themselves, how they look thjemselves in the mirror and what they write. In relation to Williams, I don't think he makes stuff up at all. I don't think he needs to. He has access to poeple who clearly give him very good stories. And, anyway, I don't think he'd even want to make stuff up. He's a brand in his own right and if his brabnd is damaged, then he's damaged.

So, whenever you're ready, you might want to prove what you've claimed, or perhaps you're making ****e up?

lostexpectation

santosubito wrote:

It's nice that you remember me. But I wouldn't call myself a know it all, at all, at all. But I do now that making claims about someone without being able to back them up is not the wisest thing to do.

There are some fine tabloid reporters and there are some ****e ones. There are some fine broadsheet reporters, and there are some ****e ones. There are some fine TV reporters and there are some ****e ones. It's up to each reporter to decide how they conduct themselves, how they look thjemselves in the mirror and what they write. In relation to Williams, I don't think he makes stuff up at all. I don't think he needs to. He has access to poeple who clearly give him very good stories. And, anyway, I don't think he'd even want to make stuff up. He's a brand in his own right and if his brabnd is damaged, then he's damaged.

So, whenever you're ready, you might want to prove what you've claimed, or perhaps you're making ****e up?

I've pointed out the story which was just a definition of hackery of its worst prejudiced type without any facts,its up him to come out with some named sources and proof, independent of pro-big business councilmen and gardai.

santosubito

lostexpectation wrote:

I've pointed out the story which was just a definition of hackery of its worst prejudiced type without any facts,its up him to come out with some named sources and proof, independent of pro-big business councilmen and gardai.

No, actually up to you - you're the one making the allegations.
Say, for example Williams found out who you were and decided to sue you (of course this is hypothetical).
Imagine going into court, saying somebody made something up - and asking them to prove it? I don't think so.

Dutz

santosubito wrote:

Well, can you back that up and say what lies Williams has published, please?

i can i've had a member of my family who has sucessfully sued him for slander and liable and the judge warned paul williams never to write about my relative again

santosubito

Would that be the recent lotto winner who is no way involved in drugs smuggling?

Dutz

santosubito wrote:

Would that be the recent lotto winner who is no way involved in drugs smuggling?

no was nothing got to do with drugs!!! was before he hit the ''big time''

santosubito

Strange, the only libel case I remember about Williams was a story about a man from north Dublin, but I take your word for it.
Look, I've been sued several times and pay outs have been made. I've never made anything up, but mistakes happen and, not that I'm suggesting this about your relative, sometimes the story is true but witnesses let you down.
Libelling somebody does not always mean fabrication.

Morgans

Santosubito. You asked a poster to come up with concrete evidence of a tabloid journalist engaging in exagerration, lies, and what the general intellegencia would label as a tabloid hack. As if he was being defamed as a tabloid hack wihtout any base.

Yet when concrete proof is presented to you of his taboid hackery - of at worst liabling and slandering individuals, or at best, writing something that he couldnt back up, and you reject the finding.

So, if we are not allowed to imply or infer anything in life without having concerte proof, then why dont you come out and explain who was this lotto winner who you have implied is involved in drug smuggling.

The hypocrisy of it all. its what I'd personally expect from a tabloid.

santosubito

Morgans wrote:

Santosubito. You asked a poster to come up with concrete evidence of a tabloid journalist engaging in exagerration, lies, and what the general intellegencia would label as a tabloid hack. As if he was being defamed as a tabloid hack wihtout any base.

Yet when concrete proof is presented to you of his taboid hackery - of at worst liabling and slandering individuals, or at best, writing something that he couldnt back up, and you reject the finding.

So, if we are not allowed to imply or infer anything in life without having concerte proof, then why dont you come out and explain who was this lotto winner who you have implied is involved in drug smuggling.

The hypocrisy of it all. its what I'd personally expect from a tabloid.

I think I explained myself perfectly well in my last post.

Dutz

santosubito wrote:

Strange, the only libel case I remember about Williams was a story about a man from north Dublin, but I take your word for it.
Look, I've been sued several times and pay outs have been made. I've never made anything up, but mistakes happen and, not that I'm suggesting this about your relative, sometimes the story is true but witnesses let you down.
Libelling somebody does not always mean fabrication.

The payouts dont mean a thing as the relative in question sued on principle and was happy enough that the judge labelled paul williams a liar but hey if thats not the evidence you wanted to hear i'll let you proceed in trying to prove your point in a different light no that proof has been put to you

Morgans

It is funny how an accusation of being a tabloid hack immediately springs the libel reflex. Show me your proof. When it is proven by the law of the land that he has slandered and libelled someone, it is rejected. A higher authority than that knows better.

Impossible arguement to win.

Roy Curtis is the worst Irish journalist ever, IMO. Paul Williams is simply a parasite.

Dutz

Morgans wrote:

Paul Williams is simply a parasite.

Agreed, he is worse then some of the people he writes about

santosubito

Copyright 1997 The Irish Times
The Irish Times

February 27, 1997, CITY EDITION

SECTION: HOME NEWS; Pg. 4

LENGTH: 477 words

HEADLINE: Man awarded Pounds 750 in defamation claim against "Sunday World"

BODY:
JUDGE Raymond Groarke yesterday awarded Pounds 750 damages in the Circuit Civil Court to a man who claimed up to Pounds 30,000 for defamation against the Sunday World and its crime correspondent, Paul Williams.

The newspaper was held to have defamed Mr Ian Dutton (33), of Greenfort Lawns, Clondalkin, Dublin, in an article about an alleged fraudulent claim against Dublin Corporation which was later upheld in the High Court.

Mr George Birmingham, counsel for Mr Dutton, said his uncle, Joe Dutton, had sued the Corporation and his claim had been dismissed by Judge Cyril Kelly in the Circuit Civil Court on the grounds he did not believe him. Mr Birmingham said the article about Joe Dutton, under a heading "Trickster exposed in Pounds 30,000 con", mentioned Ian Dutton as having earlier obtained an Pounds 8,500 award against the Corporation. What it had not stated was that the award, for a fall, had been made after a full hearing before Judge Frank Martin, who had commended Ian Dutton for his honesty.

Mr Birmingham said the article was published alongside one about an "accident prone" Corbally family and carried a sub heading quoting the Dublin Corporation spokesman, Mr Noel Carroll, as having said: "We're no longer a soft touch."

Judge Groarke said he had been pressed by Mr Hugh Mohan, counsel for the Sunday World, effectively to conclude that Ian Dutton who had admitted in evidence to a life of petty crime, was a person of no reputation capable of sustaining injury or hurt and was therefore not entitled to compensation.

He said that although Dutton admitted to a criminal record before 1992 and had sought to mislead the court regarding his experience with the Garda since then, he could not hold he had no reputation.

Judge Groarke said the first part of the article was an account of what had happened during an unsuccessful claims trial before Judge Cyril Kelly and as such carried an absolute privilege. But he held this privilege was not carried forward in so far as the second part related to a comment by Mr, Carroll that the Corporation was no longer a soft touch for people looking for easy compensation money and that it was fighting back.

He said that in an effort to deal with fraudulent claims the Corporation had set up an investigative branch which examined and investigated, not the merits of the claims, but the backgrounds of the people making them. It seemed to him that the Corporation determined that so far as Mr Joe, Dutton's claim was concerned they had initiated and established a considerable victory.

The judge said that when approached by Mr Williams, who had been alerted by reports of the case in a daily newspaper, the Corporation had, somewhat cynically, failed to point out that Ian Dutton had not only been successful in his claim but had been commended by Judge Martin as to his honesty.

LOAD-DATE: February 28, 1997

mike65

mike65 wrote:

I do think he enjoys the whiff of danger, maybe he thinks that if his life had taken a slightly different course he could be like them.

Mike.

With the Leitrim Mafia?:p

Dutz

santosubito wrote:

Copyright 1997 The Irish Times
The Irish Times

February 27, 1997, CITY EDITION

SECTION: HOME NEWS; Pg. 4

LENGTH: 477 words

HEADLINE: Man awarded Pounds 750 in defamation claim against "Sunday World"

BODY:
JUDGE Raymond Groarke yesterday awarded Pounds 750 damages in the Circuit Civil Court to a man who claimed up to Pounds 30,000 for defamation against the Sunday World and its crime correspondent, Paul Williams.

The newspaper was held to have defamed Mr Ian Dutton (33), of Greenfort Lawns, Clondalkin, Dublin, in an article about an alleged fraudulent claim against Dublin Corporation which was later upheld in the High Court.

Mr George Birmingham, counsel for Mr Dutton, said his uncle, Joe Dutton, had sued the Corporation and his claim had been dismissed by Judge Cyril Kelly in the Circuit Civil Court on the grounds he did not believe him. Mr Birmingham said the article about Joe Dutton, under a heading "Trickster exposed in Pounds 30,000 con", mentioned Ian Dutton as having earlier obtained an Pounds 8,500 award against the Corporation. What it had not stated was that the award, for a fall, had been made after a full hearing before Judge Frank Martin, who had commended Ian Dutton for his honesty.

Mr Birmingham said the article was published alongside one about an "accident prone" Corbally family and carried a sub heading quoting the Dublin Corporation spokesman, Mr Noel Carroll, as having said: "We're no longer a soft touch."

Judge Groarke said he had been pressed by Mr Hugh Mohan, counsel for the Sunday World, effectively to conclude that Ian Dutton who had admitted in evidence to a life of petty crime, was a person of no reputation capable of sustaining injury or hurt and was therefore not entitled to compensation.

He said that although Dutton admitted to a criminal record before 1992 and had sought to mislead the court regarding his experience with the Garda since then, he could not hold he had no reputation.

Judge Groarke said the first part of the article was an account of what had happened during an unsuccessful claims trial before Judge Cyril Kelly and as such carried an absolute privilege. But he held this privilege was not carried forward in so far as the second part related to a comment by Mr, Carroll that the Corporation was no longer a soft touch for people looking for easy compensation money and that it was fighting back.

He said that in an effort to deal with fraudulent claims the Corporation had set up an investigative branch which examined and investigated, not the merits of the claims, but the backgrounds of the people making them. It seemed to him that the Corporation determined that so far as Mr Joe, Dutton's claim was concerned they had initiated and established a considerable victory.

The judge said that when approached by Mr Williams, who had been alerted by reports of the case in a daily newspaper, the Corporation had, somewhat cynically, failed to point out that Ian Dutton had not only been successful in his claim but had been commended by Judge Martin as to his honesty.

LOAD-DATE: February 28, 1997

Possibly, but there is your hard evidence that you needed -

santosubito

Hold on a minute here.
It doesn't say anywhere about the judge labelling Williams a liar, which is what you said.
Also, if you look at the bottom of the story, the judge seems to be quite sympathetic to him and hockeys the corporation.
The only reason I put this up was because it was the only reference to Williams and libel I could find on LexisNexis, a search tool.

Dutz

Look wouldnt be bothered arguing here but i was in the court and that is only an extract of a conversation that the paper wrote.

santosubito

Dutz wrote:

Look wouldnt be bothered arguing here but i was in the court and that is only an extract of a conversation that the paper wrote.

Nonsense. Any judge calls any reporter a liar in open court and it would be reported. The Irish Times would quote it automatically. Seems to me that story was a **** up - but was not a malicious piece of fabrication.

santosubito

Morgans wrote:

It is funny how an accusation of being a tabloid hack immediately springs the libel reflex. Show me your proof. When it is proven by the law of the land that he has slandered and libelled someone, it is rejected. A higher authority than that knows better.

Impossible arguement to win.

Roy Curtis is the worst Irish journalist ever, IMO. Paul Williams is simply a parasite.

There you go, Morgans.
So, having read the article by the - highly respected - Irish Times, I think you'll see that I was right. Libel does not mean making stuff up, you can be unlucky, like Williams was here, in my opinion.
Although, you might just be right about Roy Curtis - he's certaily there or there abouts.

Morgans

One of the reasons for Paul Williams promenence is due to the editorial bent of the paper he writes for. At a time when crime rates were down accross the board Paul Williams and his paper were glamourising the head honchos of the drug gangs accross the city. Now, did that contribute to the increase of violent crimes in the past couple of years. Who is to say? My opinion is yes.

So, the bigger the crime problem is, real or perceived, the more Paul Williams can charge for his services. I remember being stuck in a hospital waiting room about six months ago (perhaps) where Paul Williams and Gerry Ryan were reading extract from his book - well they were being drmatized by Joe ____ (cant remember his surname, but it was Gerry Ryan partner-in-crime on the show Secrets, and used to do the dramatisations of the tribunals)

THe whole two hours were based around the bare faced cheek of these "hard chaws", who are nice as pie to their neighbours but are killing, raping, etc in their spare time. Sickening nonsence from all sides, from Williams scaremongering, to Joe's Ballyer accents, to Gerry's faux shock.

Williams (and his paper) are part of the problem, not part of the solution, but the paper, the person, and his defenders make you think otherwise. I dont think he is next or near as bad as those he targets, but he is definitely bolstering their position , adn those who wish to be in their position.

I'm sure you'd appreciate that those who he targets dont want to be part of any libel case or have their history dragged through the courts, and I would say he has carte blanche to say what he wants about individuals who dont care about his scribblings. just because he hasnt been convicted or libel more than once, doesnt mean he doesnt exagerrate stories. The pressure of being a tabloid journalist should not be sniffed at.

As long as the royalties of his books keep him in clover, that's the main thing.

santosubito

Morgans wrote:

Santosubito. You asked a poster to come up with concrete evidence of a tabloid journalist engaging in exagerration, lies, and what the general intellegencia would label as a tabloid hack. As if he was being defamed as a tabloid hack wihtout any base.

Yet when concrete proof is presented to you of his taboid hackery - of at worst liabling and slandering individuals, or at best, writing something that he couldnt back up, and you reject the finding.

So, if we are not allowed to imply or infer anything in life without having concerte proof, then why dont you come out and explain who was this lotto winner who you have implied is involved in drug smuggling.

The hypocrisy of it all. its what I'd personally expect from a tabloid.

Again: it wasn't concrete proof, at all. he wasn't called a liar, according to the Irish Times. He wasn't ordered not to write about him.
That's concrete.

santosubito

Morgans wrote:

One of the reasons for Paul Williams promenence is due to the editorial bent of the paper he writes for. At a time when crime rates were down accross the board Paul Williams and his paper were glamourising the head honchos of the drug gangs accross the city. Now, did that contribute to the increase of violent crimes in the past couple of years. Who is to say? My opinion is yes.

So, the bigger the crime problem is, real or perceived, the more Paul Williams can charge for his services. I remember being stuck in a hospital waiting room about six months ago (perhaps) where Paul Williams and Gerry Ryan were reading extract from his book - well they were being drmatized by Joe ____ (cant remember his surname, but it was Gerry Ryan partner-in-crime on the show Secrets, and used to do the dramatisations of the tribunals)

THe whole two hours were based around the bare faced cheek of these "hard chaws", who are nice as pie to their neighbours but are killing, raping, etc in their spare time. Sickening nonsence from all sides, from Williams scaremongering, to Joe's Ballyer accents, to Gerry's faux shock.

Williams (and his paper) are part of the problem, not part of the solution, but the paper, the person, and his defenders make you think otherwise. I dont think he is next or near as bad as those he targets, but he is definitely bolstering their position , adn those who wish to be in their position.

I'm sure you'd appreciate that those who he targets dont want to be part of any libel case or have their history dragged through the courts, and I would say he has carte blanche to say what he wants about individuals who dont care about his scribblings. just because he hasnt been convicted or libel more than once, doesnt mean he doesnt exagerrate stories. The pressure of being a tabloid journalist should not be sniffed at.

As long as the royalties of his books keep him in clover, that's the main thing.

Are you sure crime was down when he was doing his stuff? I certainly don't think so. But I'll check.
The Sunday World does what the Sunday World does. It certainly isn't my favourite paper. I don't buy it, I scan it in the office the next day.
It's entirely subjective for you to accuse him of glamourising crime, but that's fine. I, personally, don't like the way he gives criminals nicknames.
But there is a big difference between glamourising something and making something up.
I

Morgans

Are you sure crime was down when he was doing his stuff?

can remember Vincent Browne making the point when the focus was The Penguin. If you can check the era then by all means. Vincent Browne produced the figures where crimes was far lower than at any time during the 80s, but the Sunday World hysteria was in full swing. These were not refuted by anyone on the Late Late show panel that night.

But there is a big difference between glamourising something and making something up.

one is definitely more odious and insidious than the other.