Profumo affair's Mandy Rice-Davies dies aged 70

willow32willow32 Posts: 660
Forum Member
✭✭
«13

Comments

  • boksboxboksbox Posts: 4,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    willow32 wrote: »

    Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
  • jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.
  • dorydaryldorydaryl Posts: 15,927
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Blimey, and in more recent photos I thought she was looking so well in contrast with Christine Keeler. Sad for her loved ones and friends.
  • culturemancultureman Posts: 11,700
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.
    IIRC it was decided quite recently that quite exceptionally the official papers relating to this historical 'irrelevancy' aren't going to be released for 100 years.
  • yaristamanyaristaman Posts: 1,841
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.

    She was one of the leading figures in a huge government scandal. Of course it's news.
  • SaturnVSaturnV Posts: 11,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.

    So what would you suggest we do?
  • dsimillerdsimiller Posts: 1,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There was certainly no shortage of news that year was there?
  • shackfanshackfan Posts: 15,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.

    Got to say that posts like this after anyone in the public eye dies really piss me off. There really is no need. It's of interest to people when the famous or slightly famous die. The words over, it and get come to mind, though I wouldn't stoop so low as to say them. ;-)
  • VulpesVulpes Posts: 1,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.

    A famous face has died. It's news.
  • EnglishspinnerEnglishspinner Posts: 6,132
    Forum Member
    boksbox wrote: »
    Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

    Very good. Channelling Mandy's immortal quote about the denial of an affair (an immoral quote?) with her by Sam Cam's step-grandfather,
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm not really sure that's the accepted way of measuring newsworthiness.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dorydaryl wrote: »
    Blimey, and in more recent photos I thought she was looking so well in contrast with Christine Keeler. Sad for her loved ones and friends.

    Indeed. Christine Keeler is unrecognisable from the glamorous woman she was in 1963.

    Picture of her in 2013 in the article here
  • killjoykilljoy Posts: 7,918
    Forum Member
    Originally Posted by jra
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    I agree we should definitely have a cut off point for talking about old news, 25 yrs anyone? That should rule out all the threads on Moon Landing conspiracies, who killed JFK not to mention WW1 and the coronation.
  • cessnacessna Posts: 6,747
    Forum Member
    blueblade wrote: »
    Indeed. Christine Keeler is unrecognisable from the glamorous woman she was in 1963.

    Picture of her in 2013 in the article here

    Whether she may or may not have led an untarnished life style - nevertheless its sad to hear of her demise
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.

    That didn't go well did it? What is your cut off point in history for something being called newsworthy?
  • killjoykilljoy Posts: 7,918
    Forum Member
    The point is that the statement she made in court summed up a generational view of the establishment.

    The only court statement of that period that comes close to showing the gap between the have and have nots was that made by the prosecutor in the Lady Chatterley case who said "Is this a book you would want your wife and servants to read"
  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 14,586
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.

    So if the cause of her death hadn't been mentioned would you not have complained?
  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 14,586
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    Indeed. Christine Keeler is unrecognisable from the glamorous woman she was in 1963.

    Picture of her in 2013 in the article here

    Not really too bad for 71 actually. If she covered up her arms, fixed her hair and cheered up she would look quite presentable. :)
  • valkayvalkay Posts: 15,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    boksbox wrote: »
    Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

    I always liked Mandy, she was very attractive in a tarty sort of way, better than Christine Keeler. She has been attributed with that saying, but I'm sure it was around long before she uttered it.?
  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 14,586
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stoatie wrote: »
    I'm not really sure that's the accepted way of measuring newsworthiness.

    Indeed. Does/did this person refuse to study history in school if it was about events before he/she was born?
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sylvia wrote: »
    Not really too bad for 71 actually. If she covered up her arms, fixed her hair and cheered up she would look quite presentable. :)

    Not bad if she'd been a plain jane at 21, and overweight, but a massive contrast from the woman she once was. Some people are still recognisable as the person they were, albeit older looking. She isn't.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.

    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.

    Actually it is, she was involved in one of the biggest political scandals this country has known ( sure they are plenty we don't know about ) so on that basis it is news .
  • RadiomaniacRadiomaniac Posts: 43,510
    Forum Member
    It's most definitely news and something that I want to be aware of, she was a huge part of UK history.

    R.I.P. Mandy.
  • johnythefoxjohnythefox Posts: 1,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    It's not really news is it.

    I wasn't even born in 1963, but the next year.
    I'm sorry for her dying in such a way, but the scandal happened 51 years ago. It's old news, in terms of the event.

    Thousands of people will die of cancer this year and in all following years, until they find a cure.

    This is a wind up, surely?
    If not, this has to be one of the most narcissistic posts I think i've ever seen here.

    This was one of the biggest scandals in the history of UK politics, Just because the event didn't happen in your lifetime, it's not newsworthy?
  • Robbedin73Robbedin73 Posts: 7,859
    Forum Member
    News worthy it sure is , because one of the all edged victims was viscount Astor, who happens to be Cameron's father in law, which was given extra fuel today with keeler, saying that Astors role in the affair can now be told in full , seeing keeler/rice Davis hadn't spoken for over 20 years, I bet it won't be to praise him either
Sign In or Register to comment.