This is just about to hit the UK press with any luck:

Music mogul and SIMON COWELL has apologised for putting up $95,000 (GBP50,000) bail for paedophile pop svengali JONATHAN KING.

King was jailed for seven years in November 2001 after being convicted of a string of indecent assaults on teenage boys.

King turned to Cowell for help raising bail when he was first arrested - and the AMERICAN IDOL judge insists he would never have helped if he suspected King was guilty.

Cowell says, "I regret what I did but I had no idea what he'd done.

"I certainly wouldn't put up bail for him again." [END]

This man is basically saying that all of us, Kings accusers are liars. Some friends of mine with media savvy are on to it as Cowell was due to help a Survivors Group with the production of a single to help funds ... ... They are now contacting him to tell him "to take his skills elsewhere", thus losing out on a LOT of money that would go to helping survivors of CSA because our bloody government wont do anything about it.

If Cowell appears on any phone-ins over there take him to task telling him that the British Press are well aware of this now.

As far as the "I had no idea what he'd done".

That is one huge pile of bullshit. There is no way he would not have known as fifty grand is no small amount of money, he would still have had to agree to standing bail on hearing the charges against King.

In that case why the hell didnt he withdraw his "Bail Help" when King got up in front of the cameras and called us all "Occupational Hazzards". I have been called some things in my time but not that one.

Cowell started at EMI Music in the late nineteen seventies. I started at Decca Records in 1973 in the same position as him (post boy) there is a slight difference in our future lifestyles. CSA can certainly throw a spanner into the works of future life chioces, I think thats obvious.

Archnut

Archnut
In 2001 that was a lot of money, still is, and even for a relitively rich man like Cowell it's an amount that would need some thinking about, and questions answered before handing it over.

But this might say more about the persuasiveness of king than Cowell's belief in king's innocence.
king was slick enough to abuse many boys with apparent impunity. Like most abusers he thought that what he was doing wasn't wrong, he'd long ago convinced himself that all these boys were willing.

With that level of self belief / delusion convincing a friend to put up bail would have been easy, king would have been telling Cowell the 'truth' as jonathan king saw it.

The problem for Cowell is 'now'.

Obviously the story has got out, Cowell is a household name, king's nearing his release and a circus is about to happen.
Cowell's bricking it, and embarking on some serious damage limitation.
The problem we have, not just as survivors, but as ordinary people who have the media feeding us rumours, half truths and sometimes downright lies, is "what the hell do we believe?"

Dave

Dave.

Good point and as usual well made.

But surely a ruthless executive like Cowell must have been told of the charges against King before becoming his baileor.

Why didnt he withdraw his support when that first staement King made out side his home in "Queensgate" was aired on the national news

Maybe he owed King one. Could even be that King could have something on him, you have to remember that Cowell is todays King and they are a pretty close bunch in the music industry. ... ... makes you wonder though doesnt it.

Archnut