Should we name no shows and timewasters?

[one eyed jack]

Peter it doesnt fail if the model or producer put their name to it. its not going to be a hearsay forum.

Seems the people who will be up in arms about this are usually the people guilty of it. Im not talking about you necessarily but I find people who donrt want this discussed are the same people most likely guilty of it.

If i was guilty of trying it on with a model I would have no shame about a model revealing this.

Its when it goes on AND you dont have the option to respond is where it is wrong.

There are ways legally to beat the rap of libel.

Its not libel if the other person accuses you of something that is true between you and them. Its down to you to prove you didnt do what you are accused of as well.

An annoyed producer has already mentioned someone by initial only so far ( i have no idea who MC is) so we will wait and see where this goes.

Chances are if this MC is new, she may not respond and just merely duck out of the business or resurface under another name.

If she threatens legal action then sit back and enjoy the show

[Peter]

one eyed jack wrote:

Its down to you to prove you
> didnt do what you are accused of as well.


No, its not, that is 100% wrong. Its entirely upto the accuser to prove what they say is true.

Just because it happened doesn't mean you can prove it happened. Merely by carrying the accusation on your site leaves you open to action.

take the case of Lawrence Godfrey v Demon Internet.

A very brief summary of what happened.

LG. "Your carrying libellous material about me on your news server, please remove it.

demon "no"
.
.
.
[Court case]
.
.
.
Demon "Here's a cheque for ?250,000 Mr Godfrey"



If you're willing to lose absolutely everything you own on this, then go ahead, but thats the real risk you face.

[one eyed jack]

The point being Peter, the intention is to discuss no shows and time wasting producers who book shoots and fail to follow through.

I see nothing libellous about people discussing such things.

Why stop there? People discuss potentially libellous comments on here as someone mentioned did John Leslie rape Katie Price? Michael Jackson is a nonce etc

Maybe I picked a poor example of a scenario but more often than not, its just about reporting no shows producers and performers.

We are not interested in the mudslinging that goes with it and people have the right to respond.

[Benson_Media]

mmmmphhhffffff (muffled, gagging sound)

"I don't base who I work with on the basis of another mans opinion (unless it is very dramatic ie shes an alcoholic that stabs producers LOL) and if she has a history of being a no show.....There is no substance in word of mouth unless it is from someone you really trust."

One man's (producers) opinion is not really worthwhile. But you can't really ignore collective producers reports about a bad model. The trouble is that there is no collective opinion.

Most producers are too scared to say anything remotely negative about any models. This is a bad state of affairs. Not good for the industry.

Until producers make the effort to voice their opinion about bad models in a structured way, they will just have to bend over.

Bad models will potentially take away work from new up and coming models that genuinely need and more importantly want the work.

Gah.

[Edited by moderator]

[videokim]

Glamour Finders system works good with its good & bad comments, you can't see what the person says...you only see it as 'good' or 'bad' & a few bad comments & you keep clear. It gets over the legal side of things & could work the same for you Terry on your forum.

[one eyed jack]

I think that would be a terrible system Kim and the very reason why I was opposed to the idea in the first place.

In some cases there are valid reasons as a couple of models have emailed me privately disclosing their reasons why they wouldnt want a system like this.

The right to respond is really what will make this. We cant validate honesty but i think people will see a pattern if someone is a repeat offender.

Of all the claims of no shows I have never seen a response back from a model or producer because the option was never availale to them.

There are very valid reasons why someone cannot make a shoot and it is with this in mind that models and producers can be redeemed.

A good or bad mark is just absolute and doesnt facilitate variation as everyone knows some models make more of an effort to turn up for some and not for others

[one eyed jack]

Latest is, it looks moslt likely it will be accepted as not one person (model or producer has objected to it)

Voting goes on until next week to give it a chance if anyone objects.

Thanks to the two models who posted to me their reservations on this. I have your interests at heart

[one eyed jack]

Ok this subject is voting at 13-1 in favour of naming no shows and time wasters. This means producers who book and fail to show as well as models.

Voting closes on 9th October, so if you want to tip the scales then vote.

Yes as somebody stated here you have to sign up to the site vote (but you had to sign up here too so whats the problem) anonymity would leave voting up to those same said time wasters to vote against it and since this is really aimed at people working within the industry it is more valid to them

It was just put up on here in case those people are unaware of it...Though fans are free to comment if they like.

[Rod Nailingrad]

i think the naming of people is a good idea

my ideas are

1) if model says yes to a booking 3 times that by the 3rd time if they have not shown up to any of them they are to be named ie - no shows

2) if model is spoken to on a regular occasion and the model in question is wasting the producer/ tog's time by saying 1 thing then another after say about month then they should be named but the model at least has about a month to to redeme themselfs on the post ie - timewasters

3) bad banter/threatening emails and all of above should be named as well that is if the model or tog/producers have not got all the facts in order which that person should then do a formal apology which if they dont after say 2 weeks of the post that they get blacklisted as such but not sure how that would work

which i put myself up for bad banter/threatening email as i have done bad to certain individual and only cause i did not have all the facts and jumped gun.