From the land of improbably weird stories, The Daily Telegraph, comes another mind-bender: the alleged Tania Zaetta special forces s-x scandal.
No sooner than you’ve finished asking who? — Zaetta hosted Who Dares Wins in he 90s with Mike Whitney and is now a Bollywood actress — the next question pops up: What? (or, more precisely, wtf?)
The facts of the story — a Garry Linnell exclusive — run thus.
The Daily Tele is in possession of a “high-level” document that shows the Defence Department is investigating unsubstantiated claims that Zaetta had “relations” with Defence Force troops on her 17-day tour of the Middle East.
Entertainers are briefed before duty that they are not allowed to “entertain” in this way while on tour. In the defence force they call it “fraternising”.
The Defence Department admits it broke privacy rules by disclosing her name. Oops. Fortunately, we hear they aren’t in possession of any further sensitive documents.
Zaetta denies the allegations, calling them “ridiculous”.
Angry Anderson, rocker and member of the Forces Advisory Committee on Entertainment (or FACE) who was also on the tour, is said to have made the original complaint.
Angry denies this (crossly?), poking a stick at claims. Anderson became chummy with a male comedian while on tour, he says, so “I guess I could be accused of being homos-xual. I was often seen in his company.”
But, writes Linnell, the document reports that the secretary of the Defence force’s entertainment division “was informed yesterday by Mr Anderson that he had been told by SF (special forces) troops whilst at Tarin Kowt that Ms Zaetta had s-x with them and they had the photos and video to prove it.” We await confirmation from YouTube.
Who Dares Wins is also the motto of the SAS.
Before leaving on the Middle East tour, Zaetta made a comment that will haunt her: “If you can’t get a date out of there then you’ve got no hope.”
(For unfortunate comments, see Sunday Life magazine’s interview with Lieutenant Colonel Charles Reynolds who, when asked “What do celebrities love about [entertaining the troops]”, responds: “They’re blown away with the soldiers’ commitment to a task and to their country. Some started a relationship there. But I won’t say who.”
Since the Daily Tele broke the story, Zaetta’s virtue has been defended by Opposition spokesman for defence and chivalry Nick Minchin, who was also on the tour — must’ve been some hijinks on that plane. Jenga anyone?
Minchin lashed out at the “extraordinary invasion” of privacy, saying Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has “got some answers to provide”, starting with how this story was leaked to the newspapers.
Why isn’t the BIGGER question asked Crikey? Why is it necessary for the Daily Telegraph to publish this highly personal non-story in the first place? They even use the word “unsubstantiated”. Another reason, on top of all the others, as to why I refuse to consume any product connected to News Corporation.
If soldiers weren’t allowed to fraternise[1] whilst on tour, I think there would be few volunteers. [1] damn PC words, it’s actually another word starting with f.
I totally agree with Connor. I couldn’t remember Tania Zaetta but it sounds like she has carved out some sort of career in India where (publicly) there is far less tolerance for (female) celebrities dallying outside their own marital relationship. This story – true or not – is going to irreparably harm her future employment prospects. It is almost certain that she was defamed by this story and it has caused significant harm. Can the Tele argue truth as a defence when they didn’t try and confirm the story with her or anyone else before rushing into print and internet distribution? Is the confidential briefing document enough – especially in a case where it is hard to argue public interest? This may turn into a very costly story for the Telegraph if Zaetta pursues her legal options.