Hi Amber, I did a law degree back in the early '90s, and if they are referring to your previous post, they are trying to scare you. They cannot sue for slander because, as others above have pointed out, slander refers to the spoken word.
They may *think* they have a case for libel, but it's very unlikely as you never named the channel in question (I have no idea which channel you're referring to as I don't get any of them on Virgin Media) and if it was contentious, the Admins on this forum would have pulled it at a moment's notice - they are pretty hot at that doing that on here.
From what you have said they have blatantly breached a work contract and are hoping you back down. And what someone above said about the Inland Revenue holds true as well - they are not going to break the Data Protection Act.
I'm not in the industry, but have been a fan of yours for ages - keep fighting 'em hun.
ANOTHER WARNING TO MODELS
Re: ANOTHER WARNING TO MODELS
hi everyone thanks once again for you advice
will keep you posted on things
Amber x
will keep you posted on things
Amber x
Re: ANOTHER WARNING TO MODELS
occasionally ?
The Inland Revenue couldnt find their fly without a video explaining it.
If they get ANYTHING right that I asked them, I almost declare my undying love for the person I have spoken to, because it saves me a ball ache.
The Inland Revenue couldnt find their fly without a video explaining it.
If they get ANYTHING right that I asked them, I almost declare my undying love for the person I have spoken to, because it saves me a ball ache.
It is said that both love and truth walk hand in hand. But if the need is great enough, can we learn to love a lie?
-
James_Accountant
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: ANOTHER WARNING TO MODELS
Amber,
Hope all goes well.
The Inland Revenue issue is just to scare you. However as you say with your accounts up to date you have no problems.
The Revenue would not supply any data to them anyway.
All the best
Hope all goes well.
The Inland Revenue issue is just to scare you. However as you say with your accounts up to date you have no problems.
The Revenue would not supply any data to them anyway.
All the best
Regards, James
Accountant offering tax and accounting services to the adult entertainment industry.
Helping entertainers become wealthier by paying less tax.
http://www.adultwork.com/James%5FAccountant
Accountant offering tax and accounting services to the adult entertainment industry.
Helping entertainers become wealthier by paying less tax.
http://www.adultwork.com/James%5FAccountant
Re: ANOTHER WARNING TO MODELS
To "slander" someone, you must aire in public a series of facts which are derogatory or incorrect about the person that you are referring to. That is why the tabloids are quite careful to establish that the facts they print are generally correct.
Therefore, if you have supplied a good or service to somebody and there is no contractual or other reason that you have not been paid by that person, it would not be slanderous for you to publicly state, that, "You haven't been paid". However on the other hand if you were to state publicly, that you hadn't been paid and the organisation were, "A bunch of thieves", then they could argue, quite reasonably that they had been slandered. Unless of course at some time they had actually been prosecuted and found guilty of "Theft" in which case your comment would no longer be a, "Slander". Although they could argue that you had associated, the word "Theft" with your current dispute, when in fact it related to a previous offence.
If you think about it, a programme like "Watchdog" couldn't exist if merely by making a statement of fact about a company or individual's behaviour would render them liable to litigation.
Therefore, if you have supplied a good or service to somebody and there is no contractual or other reason that you have not been paid by that person, it would not be slanderous for you to publicly state, that, "You haven't been paid". However on the other hand if you were to state publicly, that you hadn't been paid and the organisation were, "A bunch of thieves", then they could argue, quite reasonably that they had been slandered. Unless of course at some time they had actually been prosecuted and found guilty of "Theft" in which case your comment would no longer be a, "Slander". Although they could argue that you had associated, the word "Theft" with your current dispute, when in fact it related to a previous offence.
If you think about it, a programme like "Watchdog" couldn't exist if merely by making a statement of fact about a company or individual's behaviour would render them liable to litigation.
<http://www.jimslip.com>
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
Re: ANOTHER WARNING TO MODELS
Amber,
Not entirely sure of your contract relationship with the television channel but if you were employed by them (ie you had an employment contract) then you can take them to an employment tribunal provided you apply within 3 months of the incident. I suspect you were engaged on a freelance basis in which case as the sum is less than ?5000 you can make a claim at your local county court and will enter the small claims track - you can even apply on line for moneys owed.
With regards to the small claim track costs will be limited and you can do all the paperwork yourself, i.e. you do not need to engage a solicitor.
Not entirely sure of your contract relationship with the television channel but if you were employed by them (ie you had an employment contract) then you can take them to an employment tribunal provided you apply within 3 months of the incident. I suspect you were engaged on a freelance basis in which case as the sum is less than ?5000 you can make a claim at your local county court and will enter the small claims track - you can even apply on line for moneys owed.
With regards to the small claim track costs will be limited and you can do all the paperwork yourself, i.e. you do not need to engage a solicitor.
Re: ANOTHER WARNING TO MODELS
Not an expert by any means but I do know the DPA very well as I have to abide by it in my role in an insurance company. As stated already the Inland revenue will not disclose any details about you or your earnings to anyone other than you. If they did , even if the info they gave caused you no problems at all, they would be in breach of the DPA, criminially liable and you would be able to sue them aswell. Not an issue as the revenue won't make that mistake.
Its clear these people haven't taken any legal advice and its some person in their office pretending to be powerful.
I know someone who had a similar problem with a channel, again no idea which one you mean, so its probably a different channel. She stuck at it and won. If you email me I can let you know who it is as I am sure she would be only too happy to help you if she can
Neil
Its clear these people haven't taken any legal advice and its some person in their office pretending to be powerful.
I know someone who had a similar problem with a channel, again no idea which one you mean, so its probably a different channel. She stuck at it and won. If you email me I can let you know who it is as I am sure she would be only too happy to help you if she can
Neil
http://www.celebritiesrus.com/blog
Re: ANOTHER WARNING TO MODELS
Hi Amber,
there is no such organisation as the "Inland Revenue" and anyone who ha spoken to his/her solicitors would know this (they have been HRMC - Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - for at least ay year or two now).
Also, both the old IR and the newer HRMC would not divulge your income etc to a third party (with out a court order and then only to the courts not to a potential litigent). Doing so would break a number of laws and given the current climate be completely impossible!
As a final point if the supposed "offence" was the posting on this forum then it would be libel not slander - again a solictor would have made this quite clear.
You should respond pointing out the sending of threatening letters (which includes electronic comms as well) is a criminal offence and that you will report any further such communications to the police. It is interesting that even the common place you owe us money letters sent out by debt recovery agancies are likley to breach this law and if you look at the cab(?) website (may be one of the other debt help sites) there is advice on what can and can't be said. In this case a key point is that the communication gives no opportunity for remedying the dispute and is simply designed to put the wind up you.
D
there is no such organisation as the "Inland Revenue" and anyone who ha spoken to his/her solicitors would know this (they have been HRMC - Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs - for at least ay year or two now).
Also, both the old IR and the newer HRMC would not divulge your income etc to a third party (with out a court order and then only to the courts not to a potential litigent). Doing so would break a number of laws and given the current climate be completely impossible!
As a final point if the supposed "offence" was the posting on this forum then it would be libel not slander - again a solictor would have made this quite clear.
You should respond pointing out the sending of threatening letters (which includes electronic comms as well) is a criminal offence and that you will report any further such communications to the police. It is interesting that even the common place you owe us money letters sent out by debt recovery agancies are likley to breach this law and if you look at the cab(?) website (may be one of the other debt help sites) there is advice on what can and can't be said. In this case a key point is that the communication gives no opportunity for remedying the dispute and is simply designed to put the wind up you.
D