EVERY so often a story comes along which, in spite of its absurdity and tastelessness, you find yourself longing to believe. Nine times out of 10 this type of tale is splashed across the front page of a tabloid newspaper, accompanied by unflattering pictures and unflattering headlines. It runs for the remainder of the news week as though its very ludicrousness is the source of its momentum.
And so it was this week when Rolling Stone guitar legend Keith Richards "confessed" to inhaling something very unusual. "I SNORTED MY DAD'S ASHES" screamed the headline, and how we laughed. That's certainly one way to be sure you will never forget a dead relative.
The 63-year-old's fondness for generally behaving like a over-stimulated hedonist is already well documented. Remember this is the same man who was rumoured to have travelled to a Swiss clinic for a complete blood transfusion before one Stones tour, so toxic was his blood from the cocktail of cocaine, heroin, LSD and Jack Daniels.
Then there's the tale of how a short circuit caused Richards's guitar to erupt in a blue flame, knocking him unconscious for seven minutes. His rubber-soled shoes were said to have saved his life. But then what for? Ah yes, only so he could have brain surgery last year after falling out of a palm tree in Fiji. That one was almost true (it was actually concussion).
But now, in the twinkling of an eye, this latest revelation of crazy antics has moved Richards on to a higher plain of rocker misbehaviour. In one move he has managed to make Pete Doherty, the drug-addled Babyshambles frontman, look like Coldplay's clean-living fair-trade crusader Chris Martin. For only in court appearances is Doherty winning hands down against Richards. Snorting human ashes? Wild stuff, man.
However, all wonder, disgust and/or amusement was brought to an abrupt end yesterday with Richards's unfortunate yet inevitable retraction. Naturally, all blame lay with the NME journalist who interviewed Richards, where the story was first reported. According to the guitarist, the account of his drug-taking was "lost in translation". You know how these things happen?
It was, of course, nothing to do with the adverse publicity to Disney, makers of the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Richards has a much-anticipated cameo as Teague Sparrow, the father of pirate Jack Sparrow, played by Johnny Depp.
In his statement Richards said: "The truth of the matter is that I planted a sturdy English oak. I took the lid off the box of ashes and he is now growing oak trees and would love me for it. I was trying to say how tight Bert and I were. That tight." He adds: "I wouldn't take cocaine at this point in my life unless I wished to commit suicide."
Bert, incidentally, was Richards's father, who died in 2002 at the age of 84. Nevertheless, the NME stands by its story. Mark Beaumont, the journalist who interviewed Richards, insisted it had been no throwaway joke. Beaumont says: "He didn't offer the information; I had to ask him a couple of questions to get the information out of him. He didn't come straight out with that." In the interview, Richards is quoted as saying: "The strangest thing I've tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father. He was cremated and I couldn't resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn't have cared. It went down pretty well, and I'm still alive."
With such touching words about his late father, is it any wonder Richards's family are said to have been behind the musician's decision to backtrack on the story? It hardly paints any of them in a good light. I mean, leaving a box of powder with this guy? Get real.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article