Perhaps due to it being fairly lengthy and not being from a tabloid, I initially made the mistake of giving this report more credence than it should have. Closer inspection reveals it to be a collection of widely known incidental facts that have been titivated with a few 'believe' and 'said to be' lines. Might be true, might not be. How do people have the cheek to call themselves journalists and take money for this, albeit inoffensive, pap?