Theres one mentioned on the timewasters and no shows right now.
I'm wondering if it is her. If it is then she can use this opportunity to explain your side of it.
I also understand that while it is there, some producers would rather remain quiet about it and thats their choice but I think silence never did anyone any good and only helps protect the guilty to aid them doing it again.
No one is obligated to use it. Just me making a point.
However, in cases like this she may well have a good reason too. Lets not forget that and equally good point to make in clearing her name.
LET DOWN!
-
- Posts: 12413
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: LET DOWN!
www.realcouples.com
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
Re: LET DOWN!
Like I've said aqbove, this girl is new, which means she isn't one of the girls who r well known, ie cate harrington ect! I have supplied my email so if you wish to know paul or anyone else then please email me, I have had a few togs already email and tell me they where going to use this girl.
Tammie lee
Tammielee@hotmail.co.uk
Mistresstammie@hotmail.co.uk
Tammielee@hotmail.co.uk
Mistresstammie@hotmail.co.uk
Re: LET DOWN!
Matt P wrote:
> Give me an example of a case history where WH Smith Wholesale
> has paid out due to a liable suit concerning the example you
> give & I'll conceed my point.
Linford Christie v John McVicar (author)
v WH Smith v Johnson Press v John Menzies (distributors)
v Wilshire Press (printers)
The magazine, 'Spiked' was defunct and so had nothing to sue for (but could/would have had it still been publishing)
You only tend to hear about the sensational bits, Olympic Gold medallist v Britains (once) most wanted man.
> Give me an example of a case history where WH Smith Wholesale
> has paid out due to a liable suit concerning the example you
> give & I'll conceed my point.
Linford Christie v John McVicar (author)
v WH Smith v Johnson Press v John Menzies (distributors)
v Wilshire Press (printers)
The magazine, 'Spiked' was defunct and so had nothing to sue for (but could/would have had it still been publishing)
You only tend to hear about the sensational bits, Olympic Gold medallist v Britains (once) most wanted man.
We have need of you again, great king.
Re: LET DOWN!
"what he fails to grasp is the site wouldn't be a culpable party unless they endorssed or failed to act on a complaint."
Not true.
Publishing a libel is publishing a libel. Endorsement of a libel would not make it anymore libellous and non-endorsement would not make it any less libellous.
Failing to act on a complaint does not make a libel anymore libellous either, although it may provoke the aggrieved party in taking the matter further.
Not true.
Publishing a libel is publishing a libel. Endorsement of a libel would not make it anymore libellous and non-endorsement would not make it any less libellous.
Failing to act on a complaint does not make a libel anymore libellous either, although it may provoke the aggrieved party in taking the matter further.
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
Re: LET DOWN!
Surely they only have a case to make the site and people involved liable, if its untrue,
which is very unlikely anyone would make up something like that......
which is very unlikely anyone would make up something like that......
Re: LET DOWN!
Hi stacey! I'm sorru I don't think I know you? Is this your stage name?
Tammie lee
Tammielee@hotmail.co.uk
Mistresstammie@hotmail.co.uk
Tammielee@hotmail.co.uk
Mistresstammie@hotmail.co.uk