In the story of the death of Gareth Williams the newspapers have been full of entirely groundless speculation based on nothing more than their own journalists' lurid imaginations. Mister Williams was found dead in his flat. He was also an MI6 employee and an openly gay man. There is so far no evidence that either of those things had anything to do with his death.

Tonight I caught the very end of the news, the bit where they recap the main stories. The main story was apparently that the BBC had uncovered new information. The new information listed was that he had not died as the result of a sex game, that he did not have bondage gear in his flat, that his telephone did not have numbers stored in a "ritualistic sequence" (whatever the hell that means) and that his phone did not contain any numbers of male escort agencies.


I can't help thinking that this plethora of negative information can hardly be counted as information at all though it is gratifying that the BBC have at least contradicted these bizarre and unfounded bits of tabloid junk.

What do you think? Should this be called "new information" when all it is doing is contradicting other people's misinformation?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

I certainly don't think it should be called "new information." Indeed, it probably should have been ignored. However, I guess I should give them credit for debunking misinformation, but that's all they did.