I've read through all the post over the last week and I can't believe the amount of people bashing Paul. First of all I believe he had balls, for going on the show in the 1st place due to the poison that’s written in the gutter press and yes that’s the same press he sold his story to in the 1st place, and the papers who missed out on the auction have been making him pay ever since.
The reason he was on the show was to try and let people see for themselves what he’s really like. He took everything what was chucked at him and also gave some back. I for one would have been pooing myself jumping out of plane, searching around in the pitch black, sticking my hands in holes knowing dam well something horrible is inside, and there is know way I'd have eaten some of the things he did. And the reason he did was because he had something to prove to us the public, and also not to let his fellow team members down. (WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SHOW)
I for one think he’s now made his point and people should give the guy a break, instead of using the things they've read in a newspaper as an excuse to knock him. I also think the show wouldn’t have been, half as good or funny without him. And I for one am not scared to admit that my opinion of him has totally changed in view of what I seen over the past couple of weeks.

Have any of the Paul bashers actually read the book, which they’re using as an excuse to hate the guy’s guts?

Jase

Burrel is born to stay in the media.

I couldn't agree more. He was certainly my favourite.

Well said Jase! I couldn't have put it better myself (honestly I couldn't have!, I just get so angry at those who don't give Paul any praise at all for anything).

There's no denying he did really really well - so yeh - give him a break guys!
I think even Janet may have changed her opinion of him! ....on the other hand she's one of these who have made their name by being spiteful and always being right!

Good post Jase. My sentiments exactly.

Paul has got everything he deserved. he is a decent enough chap but he is a fool who has continued to bringmuch of his own misery upon himself. He has also found anew way to pay the bills that he keeps making bigger.
Granted its cool when the butler not the press secetary does the book......but why then, so soon, and did he give all but his expenses to The Di Trust? His wife was running the florists he could have kept that up.
I dislike him so much more.
There are m,any who can sell stories
An extreme are those who cared for the Bulger killers...they could name the price...how many keep didgnity and loyalty
Paul Burrel was wooed by the publicity he got and he married another 'mistress' on Dianas death the media. The media is not considerate its about getting the right story or program and thats the focus. All else is secondary. Enough bought the book he got a good post bag what more gdoes he want
errrrr
Try 50K and if they went a luxury holiday for the family.
Burrel is a pleaser, so be nice, thats cool but when will he stop whining.
He did a NO NO with the Dead Di money spinning career.
He did it as he is a pleaser that can not say No easily.
He will have guilt and torment about it for the rest of his life.
He knows
He betrayed his position as a trusted servant for both the dead and the living.
He will never ever get back the trust and respect of those from whom he really wants it...........

I like him

I like him




Me too! He done well - just admit it you Paul Bashers!

Fair enough on the programme he was a bigger less pathetic drama queen than Natalie, so for entertainment value with the jsp banter it was fine entertainment. JSP saved him from being a smarmy know it all.
He came with a history and....sadly he affirmed that he is a first class creep, entertaining or not. His choice to be in the media spotlight means he has consented to everybit of hateful press he has to endure.

A few years ago while I was earning 30 pounds a week as an YTS trainee.
I was the main witness to a robbery, which hit the newspaper headlines.
The next day when I went to work I found there were about 20 different reporters camped outside where I worked. So after spending half the day hiding out the back I was told that the only way the reporters would leave me alone was if I gave my story to one of them. I was then made an offer of 600 pounds for my exclusive interview by the top selling tabloid, which I agreed to. But I would only get the money if THEY decided to publish the story. A bit later on in the day another newspaper offered me 1200 pounds in cash for my story (40 x my weekly salary) and me being a naïve teenager seeing the pound signs was talked round even though I had explained to them I had already agreed a deal, after being told not to worry as it happens all time.
The next day the original tabloid reporters turned up again with a smile on faces (revenge time), asking me to respond to an allegation that I threatened and beat up and a disabled teenager 2 years my junior.

The concerned teenager was a kid who along with mates had been verbally (extremely strong language) abusing my mother a few months prior. As any normal person, I warned the person off a few days after the verbal abuse incident, and the beating up part was me knocking an empty crisp packet out of his hands.

The point I’m trying to make is some of these people who write for these newspaper do not care if they destroy people lives or if they bend the truth, by only telling one version of events, as long as they sell some papers.

The concerned reporters had been round every house in my street trying to find some dirt to spread.

And the reason the poor innocent teenager was disabled was because he was slightly deaf in one ear.

Jase

Load of drivel.

If you appear on a show like IAC - and get paid 50k to do so - you deserve to have your personality - and your past - picked over with a fine tooth comb, especially if you insist on using it to try to win votes.

And if you come across as a wet blanket, expect to be told so.

I symathise totally Jase, and I know this happens a lot in many forms. A shunned newspaper is the most lethal thing going, they will dig, twist and publish any tiny thing they can, blown out of all proportion. Sod decency, that doesn't even come into it.

Many years back Panorama were doing an in depth study into the work my husband was involved in, and he was interviewed as a part of it for his views. He came home and told me all about it, very pleased that he had done a good interview, though puzzled by some of the questions he got.

It was on TV a few weeks later, and we were both mortified when we saw it. Due to some clever questions and slick editing, the whole thing was twisted beyond belief, and nothing was as he had factually told it. Luckily for him, there was an unbiased witness to that interview who complained as well. He could have lost his career and his reputaion - all for a 'good' programme.



I take people on face value, not what the media tell us - I won't even read a newspaper and prefer to trawl the web for news facts. I liked Paul Burrell as he was, and never fall into the trap of what the media thinks we should all believe - just 'cos they are miffed they didn't get the exclusive story. :angry:

When asked why he wrote the book, this is what Paul had to say: "I have made this book as true to her spirit as possible-as inspiring, as loving, as fun. Over the last six years I've had time to reflect on the extraordinary eventsthat I have witnessed. During that time, I have watched and listened patiently as many individuals have claimed to know the truth about the Princess of Wales. I have watched and listened knowing that what was claimed to be the truth is actually far from it. I decided reluctantly to tell what I know to be the truth because I firmly believe that someone has to stand in the Princess' corner and fight for her now that she cannot do so. I welcome the official inquest into her death and it is my hope that it will uncover what really happened that night in Paris. I never thought that I would need to write this book but then I never thought that I would need to redress the balance. I never thought that I would need to defend the Princess against untruths from many different quarters. I was devoted to the Royal Family for many years - first to the Queen, then to the Prince of Wales and finally to the Princess and I remain a loyal subject. But I believe that it is important that the truth is known NOW rather than waiting for the details to emerge in official papers when they are released in 25 years."

Personally, I think he did the right thing, there was a lot of drivel written about Diana when she died that hurt her sons terribly. I applaud what he did, and I would do the same if people were doing that to someone I cared for.

He will have guilt and torment about it for the rest of his life.

Well,he's not exactly a mass murderer...so many people focus their hatred on the wrong people,it's just unbelievable...
I'm not exactly a big fan of Paul Burell but I think that treating him as the biggest criminal in the universe is completely ridiculous...

When asked why he wrote the book, this is what Paul had to say: "I have made this book as true to her spirit as possible-as inspiring, as loving, as fun. Over the last six years I've had time to reflect on the extraordinary eventsthat I have witnessed. During that time, I have watched and listened patiently as many individuals have claimed to know the truth about the Princess of Wales. I have watched and listened knowing that what was claimed to be the truth is actually far from it. I decided reluctantly to tell what I know to be the truth because I firmly believe that someone has to stand in the Princess' corner and fight for her now that she cannot do so. I welcome the official inquest into her death and it is my hope that it will uncover what really happened that night in Paris. I never thought that I would need to write this book but then I never thought that I would need to redress the balance. I never thought that I would need to defend the Princess against untruths from many different quarters. I was devoted to the Royal Family for many years - first to the Queen, then to the Prince of Wales and finally to the Princess and I remain a loyal subject. But I believe that it is important that the truth is known NOW rather than waiting for the details to emerge in official papers when they are released in 25 years."

Personally, I think he did the right thing, there was a lot of drivel written about Diana when she died that hurt her sons terribly. I applaud what he did, and I would do the same if people were doing that to someone I cared for.


Yes, but was it his place to set the record straight? Surely it was up to the family of Diana rather than a paid servant [which is, after all, what he was] to reveal secrets and private thoughts. They, to my knowledge, would rather ignore the press. You can't tell me that her boys are less concerned about their mothers reputation than Paul. He is arrogant in the extreme if he thinks he is her saviour, is he in some phone box now putting his pants on over his trousers !!! :)

"You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family"

Wasn't Diana alienated from her family prior to her death? How much did they really know of what went on? Did they believe all they read? Have you read Burrells book - or just taken on what the peeved media wrote about it?

Lot of questions Christine, and as to who knows the answers I am as in the dark as you probably are. I still stand by the fact that I liked the bloke that was on IAC, he hasn't caused a criminal offence, and he hasn't been dragged through the courts for libel.

He is arrogant in the extreme if he thinks he is her saviour, is he in some phone box now putting his pants on over his trousers !!! :)


No he's giveing the phone box windows a lovely shine, and sweeping the floor because, you know, we've got to keep it nice and clean love!

I didnt read the book, I didnt like him, my dislike of him had nothing to do with the book though. Infact my disliking of him had nothing to do with anything other than how he acted on the show. I have said before, he did actually surprise me, because while I heard lots of bad publicity about him prior to him being on the show, he didnt seem that bad to me and I even found myself liking him at first. I dont judge people on what the press or others say about them or what I have heard, I judge them on what I see myself and how I personally percieve their actions and attitude.

Needless to say, as much as he did surprise me and even swayed me from being neutral to actually liking him at first, but that changed as time went on and his showed his true nature. I am not going to list all the reasons I disliked him as I have said them many times before. Just glad he didnt win it.

I dont think I would ever read the book by the way, I dont think the book will tell the full truth anymore than the papers do, charles did or any of the royal family did. Whoevers version you listen to, I bet you will find lots of things that dont add up and therefor to me its better to just accept that we will never know the full truth and leave it at that. Thats my view on the matter anyway :bye:

I think over all Paul will be delighted by the amount of interest and discussion his appearance has generated. Yes, there are a lot of negative views being expressed but to come second after being an rank outsider shows that a lot of people have changed their opinion of him. That's all he asked for and it's what he got.

I haven't read the book either BTW, but from what I've gleaned, it's about his personal life and any revealing facts about Diana are few and far between. However, it would have been more credible if all the proceeds went to charity.

I have to agree with Vazler, which 'facts' you interpret as true are a matter of personal opinion. Too many have cashed in on her death and the family have quite rightly remained tight-lipped so we have to make up our own minds.

He seems to be getting a lot of stick over his "kiss and tell" but this is one kiss and tell book that i wholeheartedly approve of. His totally blind adoration of Diana borders on the obssessive and i believe he wrote that book ( as Janet pointed out) because he cannot let go of that obssession and still needs to bask in her reflected glory... but i don't believe he was wrong to write it. The argument that its disrespectful to Diana does not take into account the disrespect she showed for him and his family. She milked them for all they were worth while she was alive so i see nothing wrong in him milking her in return. (though i'm sure he didn't see it like this!) One christmas day, while bored and alone at Kensington Palace, Diana repeatedly rang Paul at home because she wanted him to come and see her. Pauls wife asked him not to answer the phone because she guessed what was coming. Paul eventually answered it and Diana asked him to come and see her and to bring his boys with him as well, so off Paul went with his boys leaving his wife (who was pointedly not invited!) alone on christmas day.This says as much about Paul as it does about Diana. This doesn't excuse the awful way Paul has treated his wife, but i think its more to do with being weak, obssessed and easily manipulated than any intended malice. I couldn't say the same for Diana. If i had been his wife i would have forced him to write the book with a gun to his head, for revenge as well as the money! :mad2:

"You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family"

Wasn't Diana alienated from her family prior to her death? How much did they really know of what went on? Did they believe all they read? Have you read Burrells book - or just taken on what the peeved media wrote about it?

Lot of questions Christine, and as to who knows the answers I am as in the dark as you probably are. I still stand by the fact that I liked the bloke that was on IAC, he hasn't caused a criminal offence, and he hasn't been dragged through the courts for libel.


I don't think Diana was alienated from her children, in fact she seems to have confided in them a great deal, maybe even more than was fair at their young age. I also think she had, by the time of her death, patched things up to a degree with Charles - at least they were talking again.

I haven't read Burrells book, or any extracts in the papers, I have no interest in kiss and tell stories. What I disagree with is the fact the book/stories were written in the first place, not their content or whether is was criminal in the eyes of the law. I am looking at it from a moral stand point.

No he's giveing the phone box windows a lovely shine, and sweeping the floor because, you know, we've got to keep it nice and clean love!


LOL Normal1, you are probably right :)

I belong to an MSN Group and, of course, IAC was discussed on there, along with for and against Paul Burrell. One of the members posted this:

I know Paul and he is nice guy,don't listen toeverything you see or hear,I served him for many years when he was Di,s butler and believe me eh was honest,Regards Terry

So, there you go, make of it what you will :laugh:

I agree with you completely on this,the press seem to take a dislike to someone and then will not let it drop until they have hounded them out of public life. eg. D Blunkett at the moment. :devil: Burrell had two years of being accused of stealing goods from Diana until the Queen remembered he'd told her he was looking after them!!!He was almost ruined financially and I don't blame him for writing the book. He clearly loved Diana and anyway the tapes being released now are much more revealing than his book!

I haven't read Burrells book, or any extracts in the papers, I have no interest in kiss and tell stories. What I disagree with is the fact the book/stories were written in the first place, not their content or whether is was criminal in the eyes of the law. I am looking at it from a moral stand point.
Thats how I feel about it - as some of you know, I dont buy the gutter tabloids and I wouldnt line the pocket of a servant to Diana who should have had the common decency to keep her private life private....If he cared for her as much as he professes, then surely he should have kept her confidence?!?!

I would rather scrub toilets than whore myself to the media!

Thats how I feel about it - as some of you know, I dont buy the gutter tabloids and I wouldnt line the pocket of a servant to Diana who should have had the common decency to keep her private life private....If he cared for her as much as he professes, then surely he should have kept her confidence?!?!

I would rather scrub toilets than whore myself to the media!

She pretty much whored herself to the media, as did Charles, so why shouldn't Burrell? The Royal Family tried to take him to the cleaners, and it was only then that he turncoated. I don't blame him. If they had treated him fairly, he would never have sold anything. You reap what you sow. (By the way, I haven't read the book either, but I have listened to the news.)

Queenie, wise words :)

The post after you seems to be saying that if one person does something wrong its OK for everyone else to join in - not sure I follow this argument :(

Queenie, wise words :)

The post after you seems to be saying that if one person does something wrong its OK for everyone else to join in - not sure I follow this argument :(


If she has sold stories about herself, why is it wrong for him to do so? If she hadn't then I would agree that he was wrong.

If she has sold stories about herself, why is it wrong for him to do so? If she hadn't then I would agree that he was wrong.
thats the whole difference here IMHO Lyndsay.....Diana was part of the media circus, it was part and parcel of her life and yes I agree that perhaps she did use the media to her gain, but I also feel very strongly if the media hadnt been the frenzy it became over Diana, then perhaps things would have ended up differently for her.......I may be wrong, we will never know!

Paul Burrell was a SERVANT, nothing more, nothing less, and therefore, my morals and ideals say that he should not have betrayed the woman he professes to have adored by selling HIS soul! Perhaps I just have higher standards or I am a bit "stuffy", I dont know :unsure:

It is one thing selling YOUR personal story but even then, you would have to accept that the tabloid media will twist and change your story to suit themselves to sell their papers and line their fat pockets......

For the record, I feel this about anyone who does a "kiss and tell" which is WHY I refuse to buy a tabloid newspaper!

Dianas previous press secetary or someone very important not servant but one of the tribe who run the royalty. He broke silence to say she never once used HER press office to discredit Charles NOT once on the other hand PC's camp were going overboard to discredit DIANA, the Royals are also governed by the privvy counsel or whatever...I can see him now . ooooh what is his name?? dark curly hair and glasses...

Paul broke a golden rule and decided to put the record straight.

Paul showed himself up when he forced JSP to have Brandy Custard, it was such a winderful thing to have good food and Burrell tainted it with his dogma, that was the wrong way to stand up to JSP it showed him to be a bully and control freak of the highest order. JSP was in a its two weeks its a job mode and let it go and left the nastiness with Paul, any one with intelligence would know warm janets without brandy and warm the rest with brandy. IT was cruel really.
PB put himself in the media world and he must accept the good and bad. I am sure he is an OK bloke in simple superficial dealings but that does not mean he isn't a complete dirtbag.

<<<<< PB got a message for you most of the GBP still don't like you.>>>>>>

You have been replaced by a novelty item packets of 'Grow your own butler seeds' they are selling fast!

I don't care about Paul and the Royal family, but he was great entertainment in the jungle.

I still dont understand how he was allowed to write a book about the Royals. Surely he signed the Official Secrets Act ?

As for the fact that he was dragged through the judicial system for a year, it got to Court and then the whole case collapsed because the Queen "suddenly remembered a conversation with him", just totally amazes me. How can he possibly still profess to like the Queen after she nearly hung him out to dry? For twelve months?

Paul's got a tv program this week; there was an ad for it and he was talking about Diana. That's a bit quick, unless it was made before IAC. Or is it a repeat? I'm not sure.

I still dont understand how he was allowed to write a book about the Royals. Surely he signed the Official Secrets Act ?

As for the fact that he was dragged through the judicial system for a year, it got to Court and then the whole case collapsed because the Queen "suddenly remembered a conversation with him", just totally amazes me. How can he possibly still profess to like the Queen after she nearly hung him out to dry? For twelve months?

He seems to be overwhelmed by the importance of royalty. i suppose it'd be easy to feel like that, given his previous job, and the absence of anything else to ground you; i.e. an independent sense of your own worth. It's nothing new; If you read the old 'three musketeers' books, they were always running about, risking their lives to protect the royals, with no thought for themselves; they weren't 'important'.
Maybe ole Paul's a bit of a musketeer at heart; or maybe I've got it completely wrong; I don't know enough to have a serious opinion. I've spoken to others with much stronger opinions, but it's not really printable.
Gosh, that's my longest post; I hope it makes sense.

Paul's got a tv program this week; there was an ad for it and he was talking about Diana. That's a bit quick, unless it was made before IAC. Or is it a repeat? I'm not sure.

I don't think it'll do him any favours from what I read in the TV mag. I thought I saw a headline in a newspaper saying 'the butler is dead says Paul Burrell'. This won't do much to lay him to rest. I foound him entertaining in the jungle but I wouldn't want to watch a programme about his life with the royals.

I don't think it'll do him any favours from what I read in the TV mag. I thought I saw a headline in a newspaper saying 'the butler is dead says Paul Burrell'. This won't do much to lay him to rest. I foound him entertaining in the jungle but I wouldn't want to watch a programme about his life with the royals.

I know what you mean. I'll watch it, but I don't expect to find it interesting; I preferred him in the jungle too. And I think that Janet was right in telling him to 'move on'. Anyway, I'd rather watch him on a chatshow, talking about his new panto. Or maybe he'll write another book: 'My life with Janet'.
I'd read that.

If she has sold stories about herself, why is it wrong for him to do so? If she hadn't then I would agree that he was wrong.


Well for someone to sell stories about themselves is one thing, but for someone to sell stories about a public figure is another in my eyes.

Well for someone to sell stories about themselves is one thing, but for someone to sell stories about a public figure is another in my eyes.

Even worse when that public figure is actually dead and not in a position to defend or corroborate what is written.......

Even worse when that public figure is actually dead and not in a position to defend or corroborate what is written.......Oh I don't know - I would say it's the best time to do it! :laugh:

has Paul been offered any t.v jobs or anything yet? i just wondered what his plans were.

has Paul been offered any t.v jobs or anything yet? i just wondered what his plans were.

Isn't he doing a panto somewhere? And I'm sure there must be some chatshows etc. lined up.

But long term, it's my bet that he'll go the way of James Hewitt e.g. a serial celebrity reality show contestant!